Wikipedia:Peer review/December to Dismember (2006)/archive1

December to Dismember (2006)

Article currently at "B" level, with the intention of nominating it for GA after the peer review has finished. Thanks, Davnel03 15:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[?] Specifically, an example is . CM. - Doesn't apply CM comes up with CM Punk! I have the semi-automatic javascript programme, so I knew that anyway! :) Davnel03 08:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 22:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC) DTGardner Note: not much that the program came up with, very nice article, i will gladly go through it by hand if you would like, just leave a request on my talk page. once again, good work.[reply]

Comments by Nikki311

I just fixed some of the comma and grammar problems in the article. You want to avoid saying things like "he overcame the odds" and "this is notable" because it begins to sound weasel-y or peacock-y. Also, one more small thing...in a previous GA review (I forget which one) it was mentioned that adding parenthesis around words like kayfabe was un-encyclopedic, and that just writing out the word without the parenthesis was fine, and actually preferred...so I took those out, as well. Nikki311 19:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GaryColemanFan

I think the article is well-written. I do have a few thoughts, though:
(1) I split up the first sentence because I thought it was a little awkward.

Yep, OK. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(2) the reference to PPVs becoming tri-branded in the first paragraph - Nikki added an internal link to give some clarification, which helps. I might take it a step further and say "before their decision to include wrestlers from RAW, SmackDown! and ECW on all of their PPVs."

I've added that little part, but kept "therefore making them tri-branded" on the end. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(3) I don't like passive voice, so "which was won by Lashley" sounds a little weak.

Can't think of a way to reword that at the moment. Maybe add a little onto the end of the sentence to make it: "which was won by Lashley after hitting a spear on Show". I'd like to know other opinions on that before I insert it. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"which Lashley won after hitting Show with a spear" should work. The Hyb rid 22:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Davnel03 07:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Is "buyrate" considered jargon? Even if it is, the end of the sentence clarifies it pretty well, so I don't know if it's an issue.

Not really an issue; even if it was; I don't consider buyrate jargon. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(5) I changed "Outside of its normal broadcast" to "Outside of the weekly broadcast" because the "its" was a little vague.

Yep, sounds better. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(6) I don't fully understand why the main feuds on RAW and SmackDown! matter. Could a line be added to explain why this is significant?

It shows that the ECW feuds weren't getting exposure on "higher rated" shows, therefore it was holding the storyline back. Also shows that the other two shows had different storylines going on at that period of time. I think it adds nicely to the background. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(7) "Rob Van Dam decided to cash in this championship opportunity" sounds too in-universe...maybe the addition of "kayfabe" before "decided"?

"Rob Van Dam kayfabe decided......." your version - personally I think that sounds weird, like the tone is completely changing. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~::"Rob Van Dam was granted the storyline spot of challenger for the WWE Championship, kayfabe cashing in his MitB Opportunity." The Hyb rid 22:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~Firstly, he wasn't going for the WWE title, and secondly he wasn't cashing in his MITB opportunity! I think you're talking about One Night Stand 2006! :) Davnel03 18:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)~~ - Mistake by Hybrid. Davnel03 09:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(8) ~~"5-on-5 Survivor Series match at Survivor Series" sounds redundant...maybe "5-on-5 match at Survivor Series"?~~ I changed this to "5-on-5 elimination match at Survivor Series.

OK. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(9) The last two sentences in the second "Background" paragraph: I'd split up the first and make it "Meanwhile, CM Punk faced Test..." or "Later in show, CM Punk..." And I don't understand the reason for the "however" in the final sentence...could it be removed?

Changed dramatically to: "On the final episode of ECW before December to Dismember, Van Dam defeated Sabu. Later in the show, CM Punk faced Test, but both men were counted out in their match. In the main event, Big Show was disqualified in his match against Lashley as Test and Heyman's............" Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(10) In the sentence that begins with "Unlike the Extreme Elimination Chamber rivalry..." the word "between" seems out of place (unless I'm reading it wrong...the sentence is a little confusing).

Yep, it does sound a little confusing. I've reworded the sentence. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(11) The reference to DX...is it clear enough that this is Degeneration-X? It might be.

I came accross a similar situation while in GA hold situation with the Randy Orton article. DX was written like "D-Generation X" twice, and the reviewer pointed out to me that it should be spelled out the first time, in this case at the start of the background section, then abbreviated subsequently, like I have with "D-Generation X" the first time, but there after used "DX". I'll take another example with Rob Van Dam. The first time I mentioned his name, I mentioned it fully. There after, I just simply put it as Van Dam, removing the Rob. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(12) The sentence that begins with "The fans inside the James Brown Arena..." They chanted during which match? The Elimination Chamber match? If so, should this be moved to the discussion of that match? Or did the squash take place in the same arena?

Ah, I guess your talking about the part where it talks about Sabu getting taken out backstage? If so, that is a huge error on my behalf. I've changed "match" to "segment" - it was a segment in which Sabu was taken out was a match. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(13) The sentence that begins with "When Lashley's pod opened..." There's a grammatical error in "he used the table that was with to..."

Again, another massive error on my half. I've missed out an important point that evolved during that little part (Heyman's Security Force stopped Lashley's pod from opening), so I've changed that section. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(14) Instead of "WWE.com announced", it might read better to say "WWE announced on their official website that..."

Changed. WWE.com might sound a fansite to a non-wrestling fan. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(15) Is the James Brown Arena "the building of the taping"? If so, the sentence might flow better as "Heyman had even been escorted from the James Brown Arena and sent home"

Nope it isn't. Instead, in your example, I've changed it from James Brown Arena to North Charleston Coliseum (which was the site of the next days taping). Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(16) Why does "pulled" have an internal link to "legit"? I don't get it. Maybe two lines later for "legitimately"?

What would I do without a thing called peer review? Thanks, another big massive error of mine! Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(17) "McMahon was attempting to" might be considered weasel words or POV (or something like that...I don't speak Wikipedian).

Is it POV? I don't think it is - after all, it is backed up by a source. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, you're under no obligation to listen to any of this. Just my thoughts, but again, the article's great. I'm just picky. GaryColemanFan 20:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many thanks for that. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]