SummerSlam (2003)

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to get this article to GA, and hopefully FA. Any concerns, I will address.

Thanks, S_RX 03:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NiciVampireHeart's comments

*Grammar: In the lead it says "World Heavyweight Championship, that". That shouldn't come after a comma. It should read "World Heavyweight Championship that" or "World Heavyweight Championship, which"

• In the event section, the second instacne of "La Resistance" needs to be changed to "La Résistance" for consistency.
• In the event section, in the third paragraph "proceeded/proceeding" is used too often, (e.g. "proceeded into performing a frog splash on Rhyno, proceeding into"). Change it up.
• In the event section, "Lesnar attempting to walk away from the match, though, Angle brought" - remove the second comma. It's unneccessary.
• In the event section, "Kane hit himself on the arena barricade" doesn't make sense either.
• In the event section, "Rolling Thunder" "via Van Terminator" should read "a Rolling Thunder" and "via a Van Terminator"
• In the event section, "which followed with a cover" should read "which he followed with a cover"
• In the event section, "as a result, Triple H maneuvered back into his chamber" sounds awkward. I suggest rewording it. Perhaps, "as a result, Triple was knocked back into his chamber".
• In the event section, Ric Flair handed Triple H the sledgehammer? Did he do it through the cage or did he actually enter the chamber?

• In the aftermath section, why is there a wikilink for counted out, but not for disqualified?
  • Per WP:OVERLINK there is a link to disqualified already in the article.--S_RX 14:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Change second instance of "Kurt Angle" to Angle (1st line, 2nd paragraph)

• In the aftermath section, "Kane attempted to throw McMahon into a dumpster that was set on fire, but McMahon countered the throw and threw Kane into the dumpster." Too many uses of the word throw (and it's tenses) in the one sentence.
• In the aftermath section, why "Parking Lot Brawl match"? Isn't just "Parking Lot Brawl"? (BTW, the link for that doesn't work. It should be [[Professional wrestling match types#Parking Lot Brawl]]

-- ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 02:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I responded an address your concerns, thanks!--S_RX 14:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkBlue's comments

• Not a major thing, but everywhere I've read, "Shane McMahon" has been referred to as "Shane". I'm just saying.
  • That's to avoid confusion between Vince and Shane.--S_RX 23:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• In the Background, this sentence ---> "On August 18, 2003, during the final episode of Raw before SummerSlam", seems a bit off, it should probably say something during the week of SummerSlam or something, but not the final episode.
  • Fixed that.--S_RX 23:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It wouldn't hurt to add the source for Survivor Series '02 in the Elimination chamber feud. Unless, the source for Y2J blaming HBK for his loss at SS'02 is included.
  • It's included in that source. ;)--S_RX 23:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Be sure that Image:Orton-Michaels-2003.jpg has a reasonable FUR.
  • Done.--S_RX 23:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki's comments

• It looks funny that all but one of the images are right aligned. I'd pick at least one more to align to the left.
  • Fixed.
• The wrestlers' real names only needed to be listed the first time they are mentioned. After scanning the article, Rob Van Dam's is listed twice, at least. Also, do you really need to write "Randy Orton (Randal Orton)"? Randy Orton is his real name, too.
  • Well I thought the lead didn't matter, so after I linked them in BG i didn't link them again, isn't that okay?S_RX 20:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm under the impression that if you link in the lead, you don't have to link again. I'm not 100% on that, though, so it might be a good idea to look through some television/movie FAs and see how they do it. Nikki311 18:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copyedit later when I have some more time. Nikki311 20:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. S_RX 20:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the midst of copyediting, I found some more things:

• "The event starred talent from the Raw and SmackDown! brands; a storyline where talent of the promotion is divided into brands of wrestling." - this sentence almost made my head explode! lol! You can only use a semicolon to separate two complete sentences. In this case, the second part is not a complete sentence. Also, I know what is meant here, but I think a non-fan would find the explanation just as confusing as the first sentence itself.
  • Fixed and I reworded it the best I could.
• "enclosed based match" - needs rewording, maybe "enclosure based match" if you can't think of something better
  • I couldn't think of anything better, I just used your suggestion.
• "thus retaining the championship" - is used twice in the same paragraph in the lead
  • Fixed.
• both "on screen" and "on-screen" are used
  • Fixed with consistency.
• "Their bout resulted in neither wrestler winning the match, after Van Dam and Kane brawled from the ring up to the entrance stage, where WWE officials, broke the fight up, which was scripted as an event to occur between the two wrestlers." - there's got to be a more succinct way of wording this
  • Fixed
• Some of the move explanations are still going to be confusing to non-fans. For example, "belly-to-belly piledriver variation". A non-fan isn't going to know what a piledriver is, which defeats the purpose of even explaining it.
  • I will try to do the best I can with that.
• "most decisions by a set period of time" - a non-fan won't know what a decision is
  • I used "scoring conditions" instead.
• "In this match, Angle defended the WWE Championship against Lesnar on September 18, 2003, during an episode of SmackDown!." - sounds funny
  • Reworded that.

I've finished copyediting, but you might want to get someone else to look over it. I've been doing a lot of copyediting lately, and everything is starting to blur together...so I probably missed some things. Nikki311 18:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:Nikki - I will try to do so, but thanks for all your help.--S_RX 19:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth's Comments

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Am I correct that http://www.pwtorch.com/ContactUs.html is the online site for a published magazine? If so, it's probably a marginally reliable source, especially if it's been in print a while.
    • You are correct.--S_RX 18:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then I'd say this is reliable. I'll update my cheat sheet when it gets to FAC. (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://prowrestlinghistory.com/supercards/usa/wwf/summer.html#2003 a reliable source?--S_RX 17:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well this is basically what the URL says, history of pro wrestling. They take their information from watching videos that the established staff has and they get their info from their. They get other information from receipts (for the buyrate and attendance). They get help from Dave Meltzer as well, they also have connections with Japanese promotions and they also got help from Al Snow.--S_RX 17:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This one, it's marginal. We're not talking contentious information here, but still the lack of sources listed makes me slightly uncomforatble. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well per this this is where they get most of their information from.
          • At FAC, I'd probably leave this one for other reviewers to decide on their own.

Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • Ok. Thanks.--S_RX 20:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://www.insidearenas.com/ a reliable source? (hey, at least it's not a wrestling site I'm concerned about!)
    • Well this is just basically, a site that gives you like a tour of the inside of the arena with facts.--S_RX 17:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Same rules apply to them as to others, where do they get their information? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • They get it from the official websites of the arenas, also this site is a part of a network of websites that gives tours and facts for stadiums of all sports.--S_RX 18:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • What's it sourcing? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's sourcing the maximum capacity of the arena.--S_RX 20:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Would be nice if you could find that from the official arena site, but if you leave it, I'd leave it out for others to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • The site doesn't have the max capacity, they only have seating charts. Should I use the seating chart or could I source it with a ticket retailer? --S_RX 20:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket retailer, I'd think. Maybe both, cover your behind. Two footnotes never hurt. It's when you're using three or four that it starts looking excessive, at least to me. If you want to use the arena tour site as an external link, that might work, it'd 'Give a flavor of the area" or something like that. And EL's don't have to be nearly so reliable as sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Also what makes http://www.fye.com/index.htm a reliable source?
    • It's the official site of For Your Entertainment.--S_RX 17:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Marginal source. They seem more like a retailer than a news outlet or publisher. Would depend on what it's sourcing, I wouldn't use them for anything BLP related or contentious. (in other words, I wouldn't say they are blanket reliable) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's just sourced for the DVD released date.--S_RX 18:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Works then. Especially approriate if you're using a retailer for that.

Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • • Cool then. ;)--S_RX 20:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) Gotta say the sourcing is definitely improving! (I did watchlist this one, don't normally, but did for this one for a bit.) 16:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'm done. I used the seating chart and ticket retailer. Is there anything else you noticed? And btw, thanks so much.--S_RX 21:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that I noticed this morning. I won't swear I won't find some small things like missing page numbers, etc at FAC, but I generally do a good look at the sources at PR, and do the full on "catch all typos in the references" at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you so much. This really helps before getting to FAC.--S_RX 23:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I try to troll through PR once a week, looking for articles saying they are headed to FAC to do a source check on. I found it helps MY work load at FAC so much too! Glad to help! Good luck! (Keep in mind I did NOT read the article for prose or anything like that, so you're on your own there...) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know, I will try to get a copyedit before I nominate it. I've asked Nikki311 (talk · contribs), but she has done it about 3 times now and she is too familiar with it. Do you know of a user who does copyediting?--S_RX 23:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you know Copyeditors are worth more than gold!!! And you want me to share my precious stash of them??? User talk:Malleus Fatuorum is usually very very good, but busy. User talk:Moni3 is good also, but .. busy! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are worth more than gold. I asked both of them to see their inputs. Thanks again.--S_RX 23:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy comments

• "a storyline product extension of the promotion where employees are divided into brands of wrestling under the WWE banner." - Raw and SmackDown are storyline product extensions? Maybe it's just unclear to me. Could you clarify it? (I'm thinking a semi colon, remove the "a", add an "s" on extension(s), maybe.)
  • I took your suggestion and fixed it.--S_RX 14:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "The main feud, a staged rivalry between wrestlers, heading into the event" - I don't think you need to define it and wlink it, and that hurts the flow. Maybe you could reorganise it to define "feud" in the context of saying who the feud was between.
  • I did the best I could to reword that, is it okay?--S_RX 14:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep. —Giggy 23:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "an Elimination Chamber match, that" - is the comma needed?
  • I guess not, removed.--S_RX 14:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• In the SummerSlam chronology part of the infobox I don't think you need to name them "SummerSlam (2004)"... just use "2004"
  • Well those are the "official" titles of the events, should I also change the title of this article to without parenthesis?--S_RX 14:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "with a sledgehammer, thus retaining the championship." - the way it's worded sounds like he won BECAUSE he used the sledgehammer.
  • Fixed that so it wouldn't be worded in that way, is it okay?--S_RX 14:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep. —Giggy 23:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "which featured the champion, Kurt Angle, defending the championship against Brock Lesnar." - it's obvious he's defending his championship, don't need to use the extra two words.
  • Extra words removed.--S_RX 14:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Angle defeated Lesnar via submission, after forcing him to submit to an ankle lock, as a result, he retained the championship" --> "Angle forced Lesnar to submit to an ankle lock, thus retaining the championship"? (and wikilinks, of course)
  • Fixed.--S_RX 14:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Angle halted his staged rivalry with Lesnar to begin a storyline with The Undertaker (Mark Calaway) over the WWE Championship, though he reengaged in a feud with Lesnar." - the last bit needs some sort of context... he reengaged when? Why?
  • I clarified that.--S_RX 14:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is all from the lead. Some more copyediting is needed before FAC, I think. A few other notes;

• Why are CD Universe customers being used as a source? I don't see what makes their opinions reliable or notable.
  • Well I could not find any other reliable retailer, this was one of the top retailers that Google came up when I searched for the SummerSlam 2003, should I replace it or just remove it?
    • I'd remove it; it's only one sentence after all. —Giggy 23:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Things like Billboard need italics throughout (including in ref publishers); check MOS:ITALICS.
  • I dont know if I was suppose to do that with Amazon, Canadian Online Explorer or CD Universe? But I did it anyways, is that wrong?--S_RX 14:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, this doesn't apply to pure websites (such as those you've listed), only to magazines/books/newspapers/other printed media. —Giggy 23:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "and it's professional wrestling section" - "it's" is a contraction for "it is", "its" implies ownership. You want the latter.
  • Fixed.--S_RX 14:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the final EL should appear above the template.
  • Woops. I did not notice that.--S_RX 14:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It's awkward to have the collapsible table in the Event section nudging the image down. Can you put the image somewhere else (say, left aligned (but move it down a bit then, don't put left aligned images directly under headings), or on top of the table)?
  • I did the best I could, I think it turned out ok.--S_RX 14:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good. —Giggy 23:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps! I'll try to take a look at the prose for the rest of the article, or do a copyedit, as I have time. This was done offline. —Giggy 13:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Thank you so much, it did help, there were things here I didn't even notice. I would appreciate your next review of it. Thanks you.--S_RX 14:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is looking pretty good, and once everything here (in all sections) is addressed I think it'd have a good chance at FAC. —Giggy 23:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum's comments

• In the second paragraph of the lead it says: "On August 14, 2003, during an episode of SmackDown!, McMahon announced that Angle would defend the championship against Lesnar". Who's McMahon?
  • I elaborated that.
• I think there's a bit too much linking of common terms. For instance, from the opening paragraph of the lead: storyline and product extension.
  • I've fixed that.
• "The predominant match was from the SmackDown! brand ...". What does "predominant mean in this context? Main?
  • I placed the word "other" in front of predominant.
• "Kane then engaged in a storyline with Shane McMahon; at Unforgiven ...". What's Unforgiven? And what does "engaged in a storyline" mean?
  • Unforgiven is the next PPV produced by WWE. "Engaged in a storyline" means that he got involved in the storyline.
• "... after McMahon and Lesnar attacked Angle as apart of the scripted events." Reads rather awkwardly. Shouldn't that be "a part" anyway?
  • Fixed, reworded.
• "... a move which is executed by diving onto a prone opponent with one's elbow cocked". Best to try and avoid having to use personal pronouns like that, I think.
  • Changed that.
• "During the process of this aerial technique, the table collapsed, which followed by a cover by McMahon on Bischoff for a pinfall." Don't understand that at all.
  • I reworded that.

I'll probably have more later, as I look at the article in more detail. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I appreciate it, I fixed what I could from your review.S_RX 03:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the revised lead is a very significant improvement; there are even large swathes of this article that I feel I'm beginning to understand now ;-)

• I'm not sure I quite understand this though, from the first paragraph of the lead: "The event starred professional wrestlers from the Raw and SmackDown! brands: storyline expansions of the promotion where employees are divided into wrestling brands under the WWE banner." I understand this to mean that all of the wrestlers are employed by the WWE, and that they're assigned to different WWE brands for theatrical effect. It seems strange though, to talk of thm being "employed". You wouldn't talk about a footballer being employed by their team would would you? Phrases like "storyline expansions of the promotion" and "event match" also seem unnecessarily wordy and awkward. I can appreciate that Raw and so on are brands from the WWE's point of view, but aren't they really teams from the wrestler's pov? Wouls a wrestelr say "I'm employed by the Raw brand", for instance? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the instances of "event match." I also kinda reworded that sentence, as they are "employees" of WWE, who are just assigned to work on the brands, like a person could be employed by the NFL, but are assigned to a team as a water boy or something.--S_RX 22:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, I know only slightly more about the NFL than I do about professional wrestling; I meant soccer. The article is definitely improving, but I don't agree with Giggy's assessment at all. This would get shredded at FAC in my estimation.

• How many times is "match" used in the lead?
  • I cut down on that.
• Why is "Elimination Chamber match" capitalised when "standard wrestling match" isn't?
  • Elimination Chamber is a proper noun, while "standard wrestling match" is basic common nouns.
• I think the word scenario is consistently misused throughout the entire article.
  • I tried to fix those instances.
• Having established that professional wrestling is a theatrical event in the lead, why is it then constantly necessary to remind us that the whole thing is scripted? "The events leading up to this match began on July 7, 2003 when, in accordance with the scripted events, Kane attacked Van Dam backstage during an episode of Raw." "Sgt. Slaughter (Robert Remus), a WWE official, was scripted to promote a tag team match ...". Having established the characters, wouldn't it be better to write these accounts more in the style of a film article, for instance?
  • True. So I only used "scrip(ted)" in places where it is necessary. Well, when I first introduce a character, I don't use their real name again. What else could I do?
• Why all these rather curious references to "authority figures"?
  • Because that is what those people are portrayed as.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I replied to your many comments.--S_RX 02:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

My main problem with this article is that I lack of any knowledge of the professional wrestling world, and therefore have considerable comprehension problems. The article seems to be written by and for people who are knowledgeable in this area, and perhaps has more the style of sports/showbiz journalism than of an encyclopedia article intended for the general reader. The editors have provided many links, but having constantly to refer to these destroys the flow, and makes reading rather hard work.

Even with the generous links, there is unexplained wrestling language which mystified me. In the first paragraph of the lead I was stumped by "storyline product extensions of the promotion…" The opening sentence of the second paragraph: "A staged rivalry between six wrestlers over the World Heavyweight Championship was the main feud from Raw brand heading into the event" was equally incomprehensible. And who are these "on-screen authority figures" – what is the nature of their "authority"? Later in the text I found: "…after he hit Goldberg with a sledgehammer". They take lethal weapons into the ring – surely not? These are just examples of the confusions which overwhelmed me, before I had even got through the lead.

Perhaps, in view of my ignorance, I am not the best person to review the article in detail, from an FAC perspective. However, I note that other reviewers have been busy commenting, so perhaps my pennyworth won't count for much. For what they are worth, I can offer a few suggestions for making the article more accessible to the general reader.

• Infobox clarification
  • Include the pay-per view figures, to give a better idea of the event’s popularity
  • What information is being given under the "Pay- per-view chronology" and "SummerSlam chronology" headings?

• Lead: I think the lead section needs to be rewritten using a different tone, aimed at the general reader rather than the wrestling event aficionado. Less detailed information should be included about the event, since this information is given in the main sections. There should be more emphasis on providing a general explanation of the event, such as might draw in the general reader and enable him/her to make more sense of the main narrative. In particular the unwary reader needs to know at an early stage that what is being described is a scripted, quasi-theatrical event, rather than a genuine sporting contest.

• Structure
  • The "Background" section seems to be overlong, with too much detail.
  • There are also odd uses of English, e.g. "apart of" meaning "a part of", and "Triple H then discussed on how…" etc. If "discussed" is the right word here, which I doubt, then "on" is redundant
  • The Event section could usefully be subdivided. At around 1,800 words of text its presentation is unappealing; a series of subheadings would make navigation through the various matches much easier. Also, unexplained terms in the section included "turbuckle" and "ladder" (in the wrestling sense).

I really don’t feel competent to say much more. I hope that my few comments are of some help to you, and I wish the article well.Brianboulton (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Thank you for your review. In response to your concerns..[reply]

• "storyline product extensions" - is a basic term of all english readers. "storyline" is not a wrestling term, and a product extension is a real business type deal called "product extensions."
  • No, it isn't a "basic term". It may not be wrestling language, but it is jargon, or business-speak, and will mean little to the general reader. Brianboulton (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• A staged rivalry between six wrestlers over the World Heavyweight Championship was the main feud from Raw brand heading into the event - in this sentence, as another FAC reviewer said above, told me to reword it so that the definition of "feud" is embedded in the sentence, and the definition is "staged rivalry" --> which literally means, a rivalry that is staged (acted out).
  • The meaning of this sentence becomes clearer when the reader has read more of the article, but at this early stage it is a puzzler. Hence my suggestion that the lead be redrafted in a different style, so that the reader gets a basic knowledge of the character of pro-wrestling before encountering the meat of the article. Simply saying that the rivalry is staged isn't enough. Brianboulton (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• …after he hit Goldberg with a sledgehammer - this is explained in the event section.
  • Yes, but we meet this sentence in the lead, unlinked and unexplained. What are we to make of it before, many paragraphs later, we find out that it is a wrestling move? My wiew is that such detail shouldn't be in the lead, but if you must have it here, it must be explained here.Brianboulton (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• on-screen authority figures'

' - I elaborated what they do.

• What information is being given under the "Pay- per-view chronology" and "SummerSlam chronology" headings? - in response to this comment, the information given there is the chronology of WWE's pay-per-viewm so it gives the PPV event before and after this event. The SummerSlam chronology is the chronology of the event called SummerSlam.
  • OK, but this information seems to be completely unnecessary for the purposes of the article.Brianboulton (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As you stated that the links is messes up the flow, each "jargon" term is explained. So I don't see how you have to refer to the links. Also, I have taken your other comments to consideration and am currently making changes. Thank you and a reply would be appreciated.S_RX 14:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will read the article again, and will let you know what I think. I'll try and get back within 24 hours Brianboulton (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will attempt to shorten the lead, but what should be presented in the lead if not those things? Just the summarization of the event section and the statement that the event was scripted? Also, in response to the infobox comment, so are you saying that the chronology template in the Super Bowl infobox is also unnecessary? As that is where we got the idea.S_RX 18:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the revised lead is fine. It introduces the subject, outlines what went on in the event, summarises a conclusion and is friendly to the non-informed reader. Great work. As to the stuff in the infobox, yes, I can't see the necessity, but that may be because I don't understand wrestling articles. Use your own judgement, but don't leave it there just because another article had it, if you can't justify it otherwise. Brianboulton (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will attempt to improve the infobox as I will discuss it with the project to get a new consensus on it. I improve the article based on your comments and other's, is it any better and comprehensible to the outside reader?S_RX 17:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, I believe the lead is much better. I have been looking in detail at the Background section, and my comments on this follow. This has been very time-consuming, and I regret that I cannot continue to give this time to your article, due to many other commitments. I hope that my detailed comments on this section will help you to overcome other prose issues later in the article.

Background section

• 1st para
  • Simplify to: "…an Elimination Chamber match, where the ring is surrounded…"etc
  • "…where Triple H…" Suggest "in which Triple H…"
  • "personnel" is a plural term – Bischoff cannot be a "personnel". Why not simplify to "a portrayed match maker and rules enforcer"?
  • "during an episode of Raw, one of WWE’s television programs…" could be simplified to "during a TV episode of Raw…"
  • "contested in a standard wrestling match contested…" is awkward and repetitious. Delete the second "contested"
  • The sentence beginning "Later during the show…" also is tangled and repetitive, and could be simplified: "Later during the episode, another "authority" figure, Steve Austin (Steven Williams), altered Bischcoff’s announcement, stating that the championship would be contested in an Elimination Chamber match, with Triple H defending his title against…"
  • Full stop required after "Highlight Reel". New sentence: "During this segment…"
  • I have edited the last two sentences of the first paragraph, for correct punctuation and better prose flow.

• 2nd para
  • I think it’s a rematch "of" rather than "from"
  • "Mr McMahon (Vincent McMahon)" not necessary. Just Vincent McMahon will do. This McMahon sentence is far too long and eventful and needs much attention, along these lines: "The WWE Chairman, Vincent McMahon, announced from the ring that Lesnar would have to earn his rematch, by competing in a match enclosed by a steel cage formed by metal mesh around the ring. The match would be against McMahon himself, and would take place on Smackdown! the following week, with Angle officiating as a special guest referee."
  • What is the purpose of the link on "neither wrestler winning the match"? I also think that to link "chairman" is unnecessary.

• 3rd para
  • I have punctuated the first sentence and mildly copyedited the second.
  • This sentence needs work: "The following week on an episode of Raw, Van Dam was granted a standard wrestling match against Kane by the on-screen authority figure Bischoff for the following week on Raw". Sentence begins and ends with more or less the same phrase. And does Bischoff have to be described as "the on-screen authority figure" every time he is mentioned?
  • Last sentence – Victor McMahon, not Mr.

• 4th para
  • I have fixed a punctuation problem
  • How can the outcome of a match be "reversed", when neither contestant had won it?
  • "where the team consisting of Guerrero and Benoit wrestled the team consisting of Rhyno and Tajiri, which Benoit and Guerrero won", is ungrammatical and could be much simplified to "where a team consisting of Guerrero and Benoit defeated a pairing of Rhyno and Benoit".

Good luck with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the review, I addressed everything.S_RX 22:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darrenhusted's comments

Maybe this is a question to be addressed to the whole of the project but I understand the need for Chris Jericho (Christopher Irvine), in essence we are linking characters (Jericho) to those playing them (Irvine) but do we then need to mention Irvine every time we refer to Jericho. If we are giving a narrative of the staged event then surely we only need refer to the real name once, as is (supposed to be) done in film plot summaries. 300 says who plays who then refers to the characters only from that point, can we not adopt that system. Otherwise I could only suggest that the event subheading be stuff like "Opening match", "Tag Titles" and "Main Event" and the like. I understand all the wrestle-babble so I don't think I can offer any help on that front. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advise. I'll try to address the Jericho thing because I believe that it should only say it once.--WillC 02:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]