Wikipedia:Peer review/Money in the Bank (2011)/archive2

Money in the Bank (2011)Edit

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review (again) because I would like to nominate this article for FAC (again). I brought the article through a stringent GA review from an experienced editor in the professional wrestling field. Also, it's about time. The last professional wrestling-related Featured Article was passed in 2012, and the one before that was passed in 2009. I welcome any and all comments, even if you're not familiar with wrestling, I'd be interested on if it's understandable to you.

Thanks, starship.paint ~ regal 03:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from InedibleHulkEdit

I'm familiar with wrestling, unfamiliar with this process. The article looks alright to me, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for your evaluation! starship.paint ~ regal 11:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
A question for you, InedibleHulk. Do you think that in the Aftermath section, "Punk later regained the WWE Championship at Survivor Series by defeating Del Rio." that it would be relevant enough for this event (MITB 11) to mention Punk's 434 day reign? starship.paint ~ regal 12:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I forget how those angles tied together, so can't say how relevant it seemed. Sorry. Like I say, I'm getting too old and the booking is getting too fast. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I doubt it. I'm not really part of this system (man). I'll root for you, but I don't want to get that involved. I'm more Otto than Principal Skinner. This might be a job for Will. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Hopefully when the Featured Article nomination comes along? You're right, this is a job for WillC ... who's already done it, because he was reviewer that approved this as a Good Article. >_> starship.paint ~ regal 12:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from LM2000Edit

  • Is there a reason why The Canadian Online Explorer, The Sun, and Dave Meltzer aren't linked in the lede?
  • "On the following episode of Raw, McMahon attempted to sign Punk to a new contract to ensure that the WWE Championship would stay in WWE" Italicize Raw.
  • "The Wrestling Observer Newsletter later awarded the event the Best Major Show for 2011, while the main event won the Match of the Year" Italicize Wrestling Observer Newsletter
  • "However, Triple H interrupted and announced that the WWE Board of Directors" Would linking Board of directors (note lower case) be a good idea?
  • "Punk later regained the WWE Championship at Survivor Series by defeating Del Rio" Link to Survivor Series (2011)
All the previous are settled. Good catches!
  • Perhaps mention the historic length of Punk's second reign?
I did mention it originally, but WillC said it was more relevant to Punk's career than to the event (MITB '11) itself. Perhaps I will query Hulk.
Always good to seek another opinion. If it was there before Will suggested removal and I felt that it was missing after the fact then maybe it was just Will. Clearly it is not a major issue either way.LM2000 (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Bryan actually did manage to hold on to the World Heavyweight Championship until WrestleMania XXVIII, where he lost it to Sheamus" Something feels off about this sentence... perhaps a WP:NPOV vio underestimating Bryan. Also link WrestleMania XXVIII.
Wiki-linked and reworded. But the portion is referring to Bryan's original wishes to wrestle for the WHC at Mania when he first won MITB, which is mentioned earlier in the paragraph.
  • "During Laurinaitis' rule, he feuded with CM Punk and later John Cena,[57][58] until he was fired in June 2012 in the storyline.[59]" He was fired at No Way Out (2012), that's more precise than June 2012. "in the storyline" may be superfluous.
Added No Way Out. The storyline thingy is for uninformed readers unfamiliar with kayfabe, LM2000. starship.paint ~ regal 12:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It reads better now either way... too many "in"s for my taste in the previous version.LM2000 (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how thorough the check is supposed to be, but I do believe the article checks out alright and has no problem meeting the criteria.LM2000 (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Brief commentsEdit

Settled!
  • "a briefcase hanging above the ring. The briefcases " singular or plural? Would it be more appropriate for the second sentence to start "Each briefcase..."?
Reworded the sentence, one briefcase can only challenge for one championship, not both.
  • "WWE Championship" redirects to "World Heavyweight Championship" yet in the second para of the lead you talk about both the WWE Championship and the World Heavyweight Championship as different entities.
It's a bit confusing, yes. In 2011 both championships existed separately under those names, but they were merged in 2013 with a new name.
  • "Alberto Del Rio won the Raw match while Daniel Bryan won the SmackDown match respectively." not convinced you need respectively here as its clear who won what.
Settled!
  • "numerous positive reviews" worthwhile stating in the lead that the event was a global broadcast as the two reviews you've picked out are from Canada and the UK.
Settled!
  • " "brands" - storyline " needs en-dash.
Settled!
  • Repetition of "title shot" in consecutive sentences is dull.
Settled!
  • Link names or don't link names... You don't relink Cena or Punk but you do Orton and Christian... be consistent.
Settled! Shouldn't have made this error. >_>
  • "win the contest. [4][23]" etc, avoid spaces between punctuation and refs.
Removed. So this applies even when the references support the whole paragraph instead of just the last sentence?
  • Be consistent with publication date formats and access date formats in the references.
Achieved with help!
  • Ensure ref titles comply with WP:DASH.
Er... should I be using the code – or just the (–)?
  • Be consistent with work/publisher usage, e.g. Ref 33 shows The Sun as a publisher, 34 shows it as a work.
Settled, I hope.

Overall I found the prose a little clunky, it could use a decent copyedit from someone more familiar with wrestling than me... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, The Rambling Man. I will work on them! starship.paint ~ regal 11:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I have worked on most of them, The Rambling Man. However, the purple replies require a reply from you. starship.paint ~ regal 12:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)