Wikipedia

Talk:Extreme Rules (2012)/GA1

< Talk:Extreme Rules (2012)
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Starship.paint in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago144 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Batard0 (talk · contribs) 13:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

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

I'll take this one on. At first glance, it looks like it may need substantial work on the prose, but otherwise is in pretty good shape. I'll begin with a thorough prose review, which may be followed by broader comments on the article. --Batard0 (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Lead

  • "one pre-show match which was streamed on YouTube" : remove "which", which is unnecessary here.
  • "It also featured" : remove "also", which is also unnecessary.
  • "first return match in WWE since" : I recommend "first WWE match since" or "return to the WWE in his first match since"
  • The sentence, "The concept of Extreme Rules is that the event would feature various matches with hardcore-based stipulations." is somewhat convoluted. I'd suggest: "Extreme Rules featured numerous matches with hardcore-based variations." ("stipulations" is certainly too arcane)
  • The next sentence is also a bit baggy. Might try: "There were three main events: John Cena defeated Brock Lesnar in an Extreme Rules match, CM Punk defeated Chris Jericho in a Chicago Street Fight to retain the WWE Championship, and Sheamus defeated Daniel Bryan in a 2-out-of-3 falls match to retain the World Heavyweight Championship."
  • "Overall, the PPV received excellent reviews, with all three main events receiving praise from critics and fans alike." has some problems. See, for example, WP:PLUSING. I'd suggest something like: "All three main events received received positive reviews from critics and fans."
  • "up 25.8% from last year's event of 209,000" --> "up 28% from the 209,000 buys for the previous year's event" ("last year's" is problematic; it'll soon be 2013)

Background and concept

  • "involved different wrestlers" --> remove "different," as it's clear in any event that they were different wrestlers

* "which were played out" --> remove "which were" (more concise, doesn't alter the meaning)

Storylines

  • "dubbed once in a lifetime in addition to being the most important match in Cena's career" : it's not clear whether the match was a once-in-a-lifetime match (i.e. it was a good match) or the opportunity to face The Rock was once-in-a-lifetime. Could we clarify this?

* "After concluding his statement, Cena asked for the Rock" --> "Cena then asked for The Rock" (more concise)

* "Instead, Brock Lesnar made his WWE return after being away since 2004." --> this could be a little clearer; is it "Instead, Brock Lesnar came into the ring, making his WWE appearance since 2004."?

  • "On April 16, the Extreme Rules stipulation was added to the match" --> change "stipulation" to something else, for accessibility. Best to stay away from jargon, as not everybody reading this is going to be fluent in wrestling terminology.

* "their respective title" should be titles (plural)

* "win the championship at the event" : "at the event" isn't necessary here (WrestleMania is referenced at the end of the previous sentence, and it's clear which event it was)

* "Bryan used his rematch clause as ex-champion" : could we get a little bit of background on the rematch clause? Is that something all wrestlers get, or is it specific to certain title winners?

  • I'm not following the meaning of this sentence: "The stipulation was due to Bryan wanting to prevent Sheamus from scoring another quick victory"

* "Jericho announced that he will face Punk" should be "would face" (past conditional)

* "Another rivalry heading into Extreme Rules is" should be "was" since this is in the past.

* "Kane now viewed this event as a sign of weakness" -- not clear on whether Kane viewed the handshake as a sign of his own weakness or whether he viewed what happened at the event as a sign of weakness (ambiguity of "event" here)

* "On April 23, it was announced that the fifth match for the event is a rematch" could be rephrased to "On April 23, the fifth match for the event was announced, a rematch ..."

* "Also on April 23" --> "Later the same day" and combine this sentence with the previous one in a single paragraph, given that they discuss happenings on the same day relating to the same event.

  • "On April 26, it was announced that Nikki Bella would be defending her WWE Divas Championship" --> "WWE announced on April 26 that Nikki Bella would defend her WWE Divas Championship against Beth Phoenix after she defeated Phoenix on Monday Night Raw three days earlier" is better.

* "Notably, Phoenix" --> "Phoenix, however,"

* "who made her return since the 13 May 2011 episode of SmackDown" -> "who made her first WWE appearance since the 13 May 2011 episode of SmackDown"

More to come -- I'm going through the whole article and will strike issues that have been addressed; when finished, I'll look at the more detailed responses.--Batard0 (talk) 06:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Pre-show

* "The pre-show involved The Miz challenging Santino Marella in a singles match for the WWE United States Championship" --> "The Miz challenged Santino Marella in a singles match for the WWE United States Championship in the pre-show."

* "a year ago" --> "the year before"

  • "After the match, the stipulation" --> "After the match, the format"?

* "was determined during the pre-show by a wheel spin" : remove "during the pre-show" (this section is about the pre-show, so it should be evident)

Preliminary matches

* "The first match involved Randy Orton defeating Kane in a Falls Count Anywhere match" --> "In the first face-off of Extreme Rules, Randy Orton defeated Kane in a Falls Count Anywhere match."

* "The second match on the show involved Brodus Clay defeating Dolph Ziggler in a standard match" --> "Brodus Clay defeated Dolph Ziggler in the show's second match." (no need to say it was standard, as that'll be the presumption)

* "It was not enough as Clay was mounted a comeback with a huge headbutt flooring an onrushing Ziggler, then Clay delivered a running splash for the pinfall victory" --> "Clay then mounted a comeback; his headbutt floored an onrushing Ziggler, and he delivered a running splash for the pinfall victory"

* "The third match on the show involved Big Show unsuccessfully defending his WWE Intercontinental Championship against Cody Rhodes in a Tables match." : Suggest "In the show's third match, Big Show unsuccessfully defended his WWE Intercontinental Championship against Cody Rhodes in a Tables match."

* "Early on, Big Show began to dismantle Rhodes" --> "Big Show had the upper hand early on" for clarity.

* "However, Big Show easily re-established the advantage with superior size and strength. Later, as Big Show attempted to re-enter the ring from the outside, Rhodes dropkicked his leg." --> "Big Show then re-established the advantage with superior size and strength, but Rhodes later dropkicked his leg as he attempted to re-enter the ring from the outside." for clarity.

* There's a lot of passive voice in the final para of the section. I suggest rephrasing it as follows to avoid this: "During a backstage segment after the second main event, Beth Phoenix was declared not medically fit to wrestle, and Nikki Bella took her place to defend the WWE Divas Championship in the seventh match on the show against a mystery opponent. The mystery opponent was revealed as Layla, who managed to counter Bella's Twin Magic switcheroo to score the pinfall victory with a neckbreaker"

Main event matches

* "the World Heavyweight Championship, where Sheamus defended" --> "the World Heavyweight Championship in which Sheamus defended"

* "However, Bryan then began to target Sheamus' left arm and shoulder with a hammerlock, then he repeatedly went for the "Yes!" Lock (omoplata crossface), although Sheamus was able to shake him off." : remove "However", as it's not necessary. Also we can say "and repeatedly went for" instead of "then he repeatedly went for" (this repeats "then")

* "Then, Bryan sent Sheamus" --> "Bryan then sent Sheamus"

* "while Sheamus' was in the ropes" : no apostrophe needed after "Sheamus" here.

* "refused to stop at the referee's five count, so the referee disqualified Bryan and awarded the first fall to Sheamus." --> "refused to stop at the referee's five count. The referee disqualified Bryan and awarded the first fall to Sheamus." (two sentences here is better)

* "A smiling Bryan's disqualification was confirmed as intentional as he immediately rushed to put the "Yes!" Lock on Sheamus, targeting the injured arm as soon the match was restarted." I'm a bit confused by this sentence. Are we saying Bryan intentionally disqualified himself in order to hurt Sheamus more? If that's the case, I'd suggest something like "Bryan, who intentionally disqualified himself to hurt Sheamus, immediately rushed to put the "Yes!" lock ... " etc.

* " so each wrestler won one fall apiece" can be removed; we've just been told about the DQ and Bryan's win on the second fall.

  • "Bryan orchestrated dueling "Yes!" and "No!"" : Should this be "Bryan drew dueling "Yes!" and "No!" chants"? I'm not sure "orchestrated" is the right word here.

* "Sheamus was slow to cover Bryan, so Bryan kicked out at two" : suggest replacing "so" with "and".

* "Bryan then peppered Sheamus with kicks and a kick" : need a comma after "kicks".

  • "A fired up Sheamus" --> Suggest removing "A fired up" for encyclopedic tone.

* Put a period after "win 2 falls to 1" and then start a new sentence: "With the victory, Sheamus retained his World Heavyweight Championship." (flows more smoothly this way)

* "a Chicago Street Fight for the WWE Championship, where CM Punk" --> "a Chicago Street Fight for the WWE Championship in which CM Punk"

* Period after "Jericho gained the edge and taunted Punk and his family." Then new sentence: "This earned Jericho a slap from Punk's sister at ringside."

  • Not sure I understand: "slamming Jericho through the lid of the announce table." Is this the announcers' table? And it has to be the top, not the lid, right?

* Period after: "managed to hit his own finisher on Punk, the Codebreaker." and then "Jericho then locked Punk in his finishing submission, the Walls of Jericho." (sentence was too long)

  • Would it be possible to condense some of the description into a more brief summary of events in the second main event, per summary style? It feels just a little too intricately detailed -- perhaps a chain of events somewhere could be replaced with something like "after a back-and-forth in which each wrestler put the other in a submission hold, etc. etc." What we need here is the highlights, I think, the main turning points in the match instead of every detail. The details are all good and correct, but we don't have to repeat all of them.
  • I understand that this main event is very detailed, but personally I feel that I have condensed the earlier portion of the match, and only started giving a detailed "replay" once they started hitting finishing moves (starting with Jericho's codebreaker). I wouldn't mind removing the first Punk diving elbow drop as it isn't exactly a finisher, but anything after that IMO is part of the climax of the match. Starship.paint (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

More to come...

  • I'm not entirely clear on the meaning of: "Punk showed resiliency in his struggle to reach the ropes, but since there were no rope breaks in a Street Fight, Punk reached under the ring to obtain a fire extinguisher and sprayed it in Jericho's face to break the hold, blinding Jericho." What's a rope break? Are we saying Punk struggled to the edge of the ring and reached underneath its skirt to grab a fire extinguisher, spraying it in Jericho's face and blinding him to break the hold? We might just say that. Was it clear that Punk was trying to reach the ropes for a rope break (not sure what it is, but...) and not to grab the extinguisher?

* The following sentence is a little confusing -- I think it'll read more clearly if we break it up a bit: "Next, in the high-spot of the match, Punk jumped off the top rope with a diving elbow drop onto Jericho, who was at ringside on the Spanish announcers' table, sending both of them through the table." to maybe: "Punk then jumped off the top rope with a diving elbow drop onto Jericho, who was at ringside on the Spanish announcers' table. The blow sent both men through the table."

* "When that did not score Punk a pinfall victory, Punk locked in his finishing submission, the Anaconda Vise, but Jericho broke it by hitting Punk with a kendo stick." : Suggest: "That did not give Punk a pinfall victory, however, and he locked Jericho in the Anaconda Vise, his finishing submission. Jericho broke it by hitting Punk with a kendo stick." (similar issues with length of sentence, better as two)

  • "Punk then grabbed a chair, but Jericho nailed Punk with a Codebreaker into the chair." : I'm not clear on this sequence -- are we saying Punk grabbed a chair and prepared to hit Jericho with it? Or was he doing something else with the chair?

* "an exposed turnbuckle which Jericho himself had exposed" --> "that" instead of "which" here.

* "Punk finished up" --> "Punk finished" suffices here.

* In "They started the match with Lesnar quickly causing Cena to bleed with a vicious elbow strike to Cena's head after a double leg takedown." I'd suggest (for clarity) a rephrase to something like "The match started with Lesnar causing Cena to bleed with a vicious elbow to his head after a double leg takedown."

* "Lesnar continued to dominate the match with his hard hitting offense, delivering punches, clotheslines and knee strikes to Cena, while the match had to be paused twice while a medic attended to Cena to clean up the blood." I'd suggest: "Lesnar continued to dominate the match, delivering punches, clotheslines and knee strikes to Cena; the match had to be paused twice while a medic attended to Cena to clean up the blood." The "hard hitting offense" isn't necessary here because you're showing that by talking about the punches, clotheslines and knee strikes.

* In "Then, Cena desperately went for his finishing move, the Attitude Adjustment, but Lesnar countered into his own finishing move, the F-5. " We don't need "Then" at the beginning, I think, since at this point in the narrative it's going to be clear we're talking about what happened next.

* "However, while throwing Cena to the mat, Lesnar inadvertently caused Cena to hit and knock out the referee, so by the time another referee got to the ring to make the count, Cena was able to kick out at two." : suggest a rephrase to "While throwing Cena to the mat, however, Lesnar inadvertently caused Cena to hit and knock out the referee. By the time another referee got to the ring to make the count, Cena was able to kick out at two." This is for clarity (breaking up a long sentence)

* "Lesnar then brought the ring steps into the ring and slapped on a kimura lock on Cena while on the steps, but Cena eventually lifted and slammed Lesnar to break the hold." : Here we have some repetition of "on" in the first part. I'd suggest "Lesnar then brought the ring steps into the ring and put a kimura lock on Cena while on the steps. Cena lifted and slammed Lesnar to break the hold." (again breaking up a long sentence)

* "After Lesnar avoided a Cena diving leg drop bulldog, Lesnar then charged and leapt off the ring steps and over the top rope onto Cena, sending both men to the floor." --> "After Lesnar avoided a Cena diving leg drop bulldog, Lesnar charged and leapt off the ring steps and over the top rope onto Cena, sending both men to the floor." (just removes "then" where it isn't necessary)

* "hitting Lesnar in the head with the metal chain that he brought to the match" -- I'd suggest saying "a metal chain" instead of "the metal chain," since the use of "the" implies that the chain was mentioned previously.

  • "Cena then fired up, delivered an Attitude Adjustment to Lesnar onto the ring steps and pinned him." Recommend removing "fired up," changing to: "Cena then delivered an Attitude Adjustment to Lesnar onto the ring steps and pinned him."


Reception

* "The official buy total for the 2012 Extreme Rules event was 263,000 buys, up from 209,000 buys for the 2011 event and 182,000 buys for the 2010 event" -- here we don't need to repeat "buys" every time. We can say "The official buy total for the 2012 Extreme Rules event was 263,000, up from 209,000 for the 2011 event and 182,000 for the 2010 event"

* Recommend merging the para beginning with "James Caldwell" into the previous one, as both are critics for the same publication.

* "The Baltimore Sun summarised" --> "summarized" unless we're using British English.

* "whilst" -- also should be "while" unless we're using British English (is that the case here? It's an American event, so I assumed we were in American English, though I could be wrong)

* The Reception section is generally quite good. Well done.

Aftermath

  • "On the whole, Extreme Rules saw the culmination of most of the feuds" --> "Extreme Rules saw the culmination of most of its feuds" or "Most of the feuds wrestlers at Extreme Rules were involved in ended at the event." Or something like this. "On the whole" isn't necessary at the beginning of the sentence. Also, is there a source for this para?
  • In the para starting "Immediately after Extreme Rules on the April 30 episode of Raw, WWE's Chief Operating Officer Triple H refused to give in to Brock Lesnar's unreasonable contract demands" I'm having trouble understanding how this is the aftermath of Extreme Rules except for the fact that it happened on the next episode of Raw...was there anything here that was lingering from Extreme Rules, or was this the beginning of a new plot? If it's the latter, I'd suggest perhaps it isn't really part of the aftermath of Extreme Rules...I could be wrong, though.

* "The match stipulation was later determined to be that if Laurinaitis lost" : Could we say something like "The wrestlers later agreed that as a condition of the match, if Laurinaitis lost..."?

* Wikilink earlier instance of Over the Limit; can remove the subsequent one in this para.

  • That's about it for the prose; address these and I'll start going back through; we can discuss any areas where there might be disagreement, and I'm sure can come to a resolution. --Batard0 (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Outstanding prose issues

I'm putting these in a new section (this is simply copied from the above) for the sake of organization. Let's sort these out and it should be just about ready:

  • The sentence, "The concept of Extreme Rules is that the event would feature various matches with hardcore-based stipulations." is somewhat convoluted. I'd suggest: "Extreme Rules featured numerous matches with hardcore-based variations." ("stipulations" is certainly too arcane)
  • The next sentence is also a bit baggy. Might try: "There were three main events: John Cena defeated Brock Lesnar in an Extreme Rules match, CM Punk defeated Chris Jericho in a Chicago Street Fight to retain the WWE Championship, and Sheamus defeated Daniel Bryan in a 2-out-of-3 falls match to retain the World Heavyweight Championship."
  • You can repeat "defeated" as many times as needed. Readers won't notice it at all. In fact, it's a lot better, because people will understand what you're trying to get across without having to pay much attention to the wording. They'll get that you're listing a bunch of "X defeated Y" scenarios and they'll grasp what happened more easily. Using synonyms forces people to process new words when we're actually saying the same thing. It's an admirable instinct, I think, to spice things up, but especially in the context of an encyclopedia, we don't need to be too worried about it. --Batard0 (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

* "Overall, the PPV received excellent reviews, with all three main events receiving praise from critics and fans alike." has some problems. See, for example, WP:PLUSING. I'd suggest something like: "All three main events received received positive reviews from critics and fans."

  • This is better, but I'd also suggest moderating "excellent" with "strong" or "positive" or something like it, because "excellent" makes it sound a little bit like we're cheerleading, which brings up some WP:NPOV issues. It's not too big a deal; I know the reviews were very positive. But I think it's best to make a change for the sake of tone. Also I don't think we need "alike" at the end, for the sake of conciseness. Seems to me the sentence means the same thing with or without it. --Batard0 (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Ok, that's fine, although it's a little repetitive. Sometimes people will use a quote from a single reviewer in these situations. Just to use an example, for Red Dead Redemption, one of the most critically praised console games of all time, we have "Upon its release, Red Dead Redemption was met with universal critical acclaim, averaging 95% on both review aggregate websites Metacritic and GameRankings, making it one of the highest-rated video games for both the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 on both websites" followed by some quotes from a reviewer. This sort of thing works well, I think -- it's not too over-the-top, and it shows what critics thought instead of simply telling us it was acclaimed. I'll consider this issue resolved because I don't want to keep harping on it, but something along these lines might be worth considering; often when we try too hard to say something was well-received without backing it up immediately, readers get the impression that the opposite is the case because it looks unsubstantiated (even though it's not). --Batard0 (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

* "On April 16, the Extreme Rules stipulation was added to the match" --> change "stipulation" to something else, for accessibility. Best to stay away from jargon, as not everybody reading this is going to be fluent in wrestling terminology.

  • I think these instances of "stipulation" should be changed to something else, for clarity. At minimum, we should have a definition of "stipulation" in the article text, but I think rephrasing would be preferable. --Batard0 (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • I've been reading some of the sources, and I think I'm beginning to get what's going on here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems a "match" is a basic match where you win by pinning your opponent or if your opponent is disqualified for some reason. A "stipulation" is a set of additional rules on top of the basic match rules, which may even supersede the basic match rules. If this is the case, couldn't we say, "On April 16, the WWE announced that the match would be a hardcore-based variation in which the wrestlers could not be disqualified or lose for staying outside of the ring beyond the normal time limit."? --Batard0 (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

* I'm not following the meaning of this sentence: "The stipulation was due to Bryan wanting to prevent Sheamus from scoring another quick victory"

  • OK, I'm not sure if you understand the sentence, but let me explain: the previous encounter between Sheamus and Bryan resulted in Bryan losing in 18 seconds. Bryan called this loss a "fluke" and thus wanted a 2/3 falls match to prevent Sheamus in winning the match quickly and/or "fluky". Starship.paint (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "On April 26, it was announced that Nikki Bella would be defending her WWE Divas Championship" --> "WWE announced on April 26 that Nikki Bella would defend her WWE Divas Championship against Beth Phoenix after she defeated Phoenix on Monday Night Raw three days earlier" is better.
  • "After the match, the stipulation" --> "After the match, the format"?
  • "dubbed once in a lifetime in addition to being the most important match in Cena's career" : it's not clear whether the match was a once-in-a-lifetime match (i.e. it was a good match) or the opportunity to face The Rock was once-in-a-lifetime. Could we clarify this?
  • It's more of the latter option you described. Background is that Cena and Rock are the "faces" of different "eras" in the past and present time period of WWE. So a match between them could/should/would only happen "once in a lifetime". Starship.paint (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Ok, good deal. In this case, could we say: "which was dubbed a once-in-a-lifetime match and the most important battle of Cena's career"? I think this reads more clearly. At minimum, we certainly need to hyphenate once-in-a-lifetime, because it's being used as a compound adjective here. --Batard0 (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "On April 16, the Extreme Rules stipulation was added to the match" --> change "stipulation" to something else, for accessibility. Best to stay away from jargon, as not everybody reading this is going to be fluent in wrestling terminology.
  • "Bryan orchestrated dueling "Yes!" and "No!"" : Should this be "Bryan drew dueling "Yes!" and "No!" chants"? I'm not sure "orchestrated" is the right word here.
  • Ah, I see. In this case, we could perhaps describe what happened more clearly. Could we say something like "Bryan started shouting "Yes!", prompting his fans to chant with him and his detractors in the crowd to yell "No!".?
  • Solved Starship.paint (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "A fired up Sheamus" --> Suggest removing "A fired up" for encyclopedic tone.
  • Sure. Any suggestions? I think it would read as more encyclopedic if we said "Sheamus, fired up from etc. etc., did XYZ"
  • I looked at it again, and I still don't quite get what "fired up" means -- i.e. "so-and-so fired up and won the match". Is "fired up" a specific action or an attitude? I would be fine with something like "Reenergized, Sheamus finished Bryan off with a Brogue Kick" if that's what we're trying to say. "Fired up" in its natural sense feels a little unencyclopedic. Unfortunately, this has to be a little dry because it has to be neutral under the WP:NPOV policy. --Batard0 (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • While "re-energizing" is part of "firing up", it doesn't have the complete essence. "Making a comeback" is also some part of "firing up". It also has something to do with playing to the audience. Video of Cena firing up: v=k1j9wjHbXys 24:45 to 25:30. As for Sheamus firing up, he usually thumps his chest. watch?v=V-ndfaOnuWM Starship.paint (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Ok, I think I understand. So "firing up" is a signature move for each wrestler where they're sort of beaten down and are trying to get back into it and suddenly get re-energized and recover etc...is there any wikilink for this move? That might help. Otherwise I'd recommend using a redlink and saying "Sheamus fired up and finished Bryan off..." etc. and then in the one about Cena we can just say "fired up". --Batard0 (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • No, "fired up" is definitely not a signature move. It doesn't affect the other wrestler physically. For Sheamus, his way of firing up is pretty consistent in the sense that he usually does it by thumping his chest. For other wrestlers like Cena, it is not so consistent. All I can say is that it's a show of increased energy, sometimes part of a comeback, usually to incite a favourable crowd reaction (since usually the storyline good guy does the firing up) and usually build to a climax of the match. Just take this example of Brodus Clay shouting as firing up. V5Ky3BjHwPI 2:44 to 2:55 Starship.paint (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Hmm...ok, it seems I'm still not getting this. Here's what I think we should do. If it's not a wrestling term, we shouldn't be using it in this manner, because nobody uses "so-and-so fired up and did something" in everyday speech. We might say "With a burst of newfound energy, so-and-so did something" or "So-and-so thumped his chest with newfound energy and did something" or "Finding his second wind, so-and-so did something" and other things like that. But I've never heard anyone use "fired up" like this. I've heard "so-and-so got fired up and went out and won the game," but this is a different construction – it's got fired up – and in any case it is too informal to be in an encyclopedia. On the other hand, if "fired up" is a term, I recommend entering it into the Glossary of professional wrestling terms article, preferably with a citation, and wikilinking to it. I leave it up to you to decide whether it is or is not a term; based on that decision, these are the two courses of action I recommend. I'd be happy with either. --Batard0 (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Unfortunately I can't seem to find sources that say it is part of wrestling jargon, but there are other sources that consider it as a phrase (linking it to sports)... 1. 2. I don't understand what's the problem with "fired up" (action) and "got fired up" (state of being). You just used 'got fired up' in your sentence above? Starship.paint (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • The problem is we can't say "so-and-so fired up and did something" because it should be "so-and-so got fired up and did something". You have them reversed above -- "fired up" is a state of being (He is fired up right now) and "got fired up" is an action (Let's get this team fired up). Getting fired up leads to the state of being where one is fired up. That's why we can't say "Sheamus fired up and did XYZ"; fired up is the state of being. I think the sources aren't using "fired up" correctly, which may be causing the confusion. We could theoretically say "Sheamus got fired up and did XYZ", but as mentioned above, I think this sort of language is too informal for an encyclopedia. I'd suggest "got re-energized" or "found new energy" or something else like what was suggested above. --Batard0 (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

* Not sure I understand: "slamming Jericho through the lid of the announce table." Is this the announcers' table? And it has to be the top, not the lid, right?

  • I just followed one of the three reliable sources (PWTorch) for the description of "announce table lid". Wrestleview says "one of the top pieces" while SLAM! doesn't mention the incident. If you would like to see the actual thingamajig, it's on Youtube at watch?v=oTzoZNwBFYM. 8:15, but it's quite fast. If you pause at 8:21, you can see the broken lid on the right. Starship.paint (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • This is interesting. I looked at the video, but I can't really tell what that thing is except that it appears to be a sheet of wood. Presumably it's the top of the announcers' table, given the sources. I suppose they're calling it the "lid" because the table is structured like a box and not a regular table with four legs. I'd suggest maybe we could say "slamming Jericho through the top piece of the announcers' table, which had been removed and propped up against the understructure of the table" or "slamming Jericho through a tabletop that had been removed from its base and propped up at ringside" --Batard0 (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

* Would it be possible to condense some of the description into a more brief summary of events in the second main event, per summary style? It feels just a little too intricately detailed -- perhaps a chain of events somewhere could be replaced with something like "after a back-and-forth in which each wrestler put the other in a submission hold, etc. etc." What we need here is the highlights, I think, the main turning points in the match instead of every detail. The details are all good and correct, but we don't have to repeat all of them.

  • I understand that this main event is very detailed, but personally I feel that I have condensed the earlier portion of the match, and only started giving a detailed "replay" once they started hitting finishing moves (starting with Jericho's codebreaker). I wouldn't mind removing the first Punk diving elbow drop as it isn't exactly a finisher, but anything after that IMO is part of the climax of the match. Starship.paint (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • I'll trust your judgment on this, since I'm not too familiar with how it works. As a general principle, I think it's useful to always have in mind the audience and the medium, i.e. you're thinking about who's going to be reading this, and what they need to know. But this is fine. --Batard0 (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • I guess pro wrestling fans are going to be reading the article, but I don't think they would mind reading a detailed report for a match for the WWE Championship which was probably designed to have an "epic" and extended finishing sequence. Starship.paint (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

* I'm not entirely clear on the meaning of: "Punk showed resiliency in his struggle to reach the ropes, but since there were no rope breaks in a Street Fight, Punk reached under the ring to obtain a fire extinguisher and sprayed it in Jericho's face to break the hold, blinding Jericho." What's a rope break? Are we saying Punk struggled to the edge of the ring and reached underneath its skirt to grab a fire extinguisher, spraying it in Jericho's face and blinding him to break the hold? We might just say that. Was it clear that Punk was trying to reach the ropes for a rope break (not sure what it is, but...) and not to grab the extinguisher?

  • To explain the rope break, in a standard match, when a submission hold (or any hold really) is applied, the defender can grab one of the ring ropes to force the attacker to relinquish the submission hold (making the wrestlers break away from each other) within a referee's five-count (one-two-three-four-five), which is termed as a rope break. If the attacker does not relinquish the hold before five, the attacker will be disqualified. Since there are no disqualifications in a Street Fight match, Jericho was not obliged to release Punk from the Walls of Jericho hold even when Punk grabbed the ropes.
  • As to whether Punk was trying to reach the ropes for a rope break or the extinguisher... I'll let the reliable sources talk... PWTorch: "Punk reached the bottom rope for a break, but there are no breaks in a Street Fight, so Punk pulled them through the ropes for him to reach down and grab a fire extinguisher outside the ring." SLAM!: "Punk crawls for the ropes but it doesn't matter as it's a street fight. But he does get there and reach under the ring, grabbing a fire extinguisher" Wrestleview: "Punk is reaching for the ropes refusing to tap. Michael Cole reminds us that ropes don't cause a break in a Street Fight. Punk reaches down and pulls out a fire extinguisher. Punk sprays it in Jericho's face" Starship.paint (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Ok, good stuff. Could we phrase this a little more clearly, though? Here's a suggestion: "Punk made it to the ropes while in the hold, but there were no rope breaks in the Street Fight format. Punk then reached under the ring, grabbed a fire extinguisher and sprayed it in Jericho's face to blind him and break the hold." --Batard0 (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "Punk then grabbed a chair, but Jericho nailed Punk with a Codebreaker into the chair." : I'm not clear on this sequence -- are we saying Punk grabbed a chair and prepared to hit Jericho with it? Or was he doing something else with the chair?
  • Ok, in this case we should rephrase it, because we never say Punk did anything with the chair aside from grabbing it. Maybe "Punk then grabbed a chair and prepared to attack Jericho, but Jericho...etc."--Batard0 (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "Cena then fired up, delivered an Attitude Adjustment to Lesnar onto the ring steps and pinned him." Recommend removing "fired up," changing to: "Cena then delivered an Attitude Adjustment to Lesnar onto the ring steps and pinned him."
  • Ok -- I'm just having trouble understanding what "fired up" means, precisely, as with the other case. Even though the sources have it, it doesn't seem to add much to the meaning, at least to me. If he was delivering a move that pinned his opponent, I already assume he was fired up. Could he do this lazily? --Batard0 (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "On the whole, Extreme Rules saw the culmination of most of the feuds" --> "Extreme Rules saw the culmination of most of its feuds" or "Most of the feuds wrestlers at Extreme Rules were involved in ended at the event." Or something like this. "On the whole" isn't necessary at the beginning of the sentence. Also, is there a source for this para?
  • This is fine -- we should definitely say "most of its feuds" or something like that, though, since "most of the feuds" might leave people wondering which feuds we're talking about. --Batard0 (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

* In the para starting "Immediately after Extreme Rules on the April 30 episode of Raw, WWE's Chief Operating Officer Triple H refused to give in to Brock Lesnar's unreasonable contract demands" I'm having trouble understanding how this is the aftermath of Extreme Rules except for the fact that it happened on the next episode of Raw...was there anything here that was lingering from Extreme Rules, or was this the beginning of a new plot? If it's the latter, I'd suggest perhaps it isn't really part of the aftermath of Extreme Rules...I could be wrong, though.

  • Hmm...makes sense in a way, but Lesnar is mentioned in the following para in relation to something that did happen at ER, I believe. I'll leave it up to you -- it's not that important -- but you might consider removing it or chopping it to one sentence because it seemingly is not the direct aftermath of events at ER. --Batard0 (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Lesnar's mention in the following paragraph is irrelevant to Lesnar. The mention was that Cena's next opponent, Laurinaitis, was the person who hand-picked Lesnar to face Cena at Extreme Rules. So should I downsize it to essentially "Immediately after Extreme Rules on the April 30 episode of Raw, WWE's Chief Operating Officer Triple H refused to give in to Brock Lesnar's unreasonable contract demands, starting a feud between the duo and resulting in Lesnar attacking Triple H and (in storyline) breaking Triple H's arm. The feud culminated with Lesnar defeated Triple H via submission at SummerSlam." Starship.paint (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Ok, makes sense. I think this solution sounds good -- we're not dwelling too long on Lesnar's new plot because it doesn't really relate to events at ER, but we're still mentioning what happened next with Lesnar. --Batard0 (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I had a last pass and made some very minor copyedits. I'm listing it now. Well done. --Batard0 (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY! THANK YOU Batard0! My first GA! HOORAY! :)))))))) Starship.paint (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Extreme_Rules_(2012)/GA1&oldid=524787875"