Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Hi, I am reviewing your article for GA. I went through it, copyediting it some. The article seems very good. There was one sentence I did not understand:

• "Afterward, Jarrett retrieved the championship..."

— Mattisse ( Talk) 16:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• • I believe I fixed it.-- Will C 20:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Looks good! — Mattisse ( Talk) 01:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b ( MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c ( OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A good, clear article! Passes GA. Congratulations! — Mattisse ( Talk) 01:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks, it is good to have TNA's first PPV under GA status.-- Will C 09:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply