Talk:Unbreakable (2005)

Move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

TNA Unbreakable 2005 → TNA Unbreakable – No other TNA PPV has used this name and a new one has not been announced. Following precedents like WWF InVasion and Tuesday in Texas TJ Spyke 04:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support There is no evidence that there will be another one and even if that happened it won't be hard to deal with. --My old username 00:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fixed page

I fixed the page. Most of the results were squashed to 1 side because the posters position 244pupil6

You must use Firefox (Firefox users have problems on a lot of articles). There was no problem for me, but your edit caused a huge white space in the match section. TJ Spyke 00:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

name

is the reason y is called Unbreakable is coz it happened on september 11 and to say that they are unbreakable from the attaks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.143.115 (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You would have to ask TNA why they named it that. I don't recall them saying why they named any of their PPVs the names they picked. TJ Spyke 23:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

how do u do that--121.220.29.13 (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[1]. Has their mailing address and e-mail address. TJ Spyke 00:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:TNA Unbreakable/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 16:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC) Good Article Checklist

• Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
• Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
• Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Disambig links:OK
• Reference check: OK

Comments: This article needs to be copyeditted for prose and better separate fact from fiction. The problematic section is the Aftermath section.

• "Daniels suffered an injury in the storyline due to the attack, sidelining him until December 11 at TNA's Turning Point PPV event. At that event, Daniels saved Styles from an assault by Joe following Joe's victory over Styles to win the TNA X Division Championship.[26] " - Is fine.
• "Raven did not receive a rematch for the title, instead Jarrett was scheduled to defend the championship against a returning Kevin Nash at Bound for Glory. Nash could not attend the event due to a medical emergency, with TNA holding a Ten-Man Gauntlet match to find his replacement at the show. Rhino ended up winning the match, thus taking Nash's place in the main event.[35] " - Assuming this is a real medical issue?
• "TNA management were very upset with Sean Waltman after he failed to appear to participate in the Four Way Elimination Tag Team match.[21] This was due to him being one-half of the winners of the Chris Candido Memorial Tag Team Tournament.[39] Waltman was in Orlando and dressed to compete, but did not arrive at the arena in time to participate in the match.[21][40] He was not used again by TNA until January 15, 2006 when he appeared at their Final Resolution PPV event.[27]" - This was copy pasted from another article or vice versa. Prose issues here. And explanation and is this real or scripted?
• "Caldwell called this an "awesome spot!" in his review of the show. " Interrupts the prose.

When I originally reviewed this, it looked like it had more issues than it really did, but I think just some quick editing and clarifying the details will make it passable. Placing on hold for fixes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed all that you have listed above. Other than that I'm unsure of what problems there are. I've written so many of these they tend to just take on the same format and this is usually as clear as it gets regarding the fiction/realism aspect.--WillC 19:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand. I don't want to impose any over-the-top criteria, but I just like coming at the topic from the perspective of the uninformed reader. I'll take a check through tomorrow and likely pass it, I just need to unwind and view it again with fresh eyes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from. I try to write the articles to best suit WP:JARGON, WP:IN-U, and WP:FICTION the best that I can. I take the uninformed person into account and try to make it as commonsense or straightforward as possible while still keeping a level of credibility.--WillC 06:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Understandable, and I do appreciate the effort taken to do that. We have far too few articles that are of this caliber on the project. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and take your time. I'm in no rush. I got other things going on anyway.--WillC 23:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Passed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)