Talk:Edge (wrestler)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 21:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Review forthcoming. I will be reviewing this article in conjunction with Jason Reso, for fairly obvious reasons. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs)

I'll be waiting for your review. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As will I.--WillC 23:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Some comments will be redundant to those listed on Talk:Jason Reso/GA1, so I'll only lightly touch on them here.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Overall, better than Jason Reso. Here are a few points:

   • Mixed in/out of universe Copeland and Cage, Copeland and Christian. Surely Thug Life, made up of Legend, Hardcastle, childhood friend Jason Reso (who went under the ring name "Christian Cage") should be Legend, Hardcastle, Christian Cage (Copeland's childhood friend Jason Reso) or something like that. It's especially maddening to go from "Hardcastle and Reso" in one paragraph to "Copeland and Cage" in the next.
     • I think I got it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
       • That sentence looks good now, but still a few instances of "Copeland and Cage" or "Copeland and Christian," especially in the lead. I appreciate that the lead needs to be written out-of-universe (hence, not referring to "Edge" there), but it's still jarring to see real and ring names mixed together in the same sentence like that.
         • A good example of this is Shawn Michaels' article. If you look at the lead, it'll have a bit similarities to this one. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
           • Jeez. I find this extremely awkward, but if it's accepted, c'est la vie (la vie). Would you refer to Hulk Hogan as "Bollea" in the lead of his article?
             • I would. I mean, he wasn't known as "Hulk Hogan" in his early years, and some mention of his early years should be mentioned in the lead. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
               • I'd expect Bollea was born in... but not, say, Bollea faced Andre the Giant at Wrestlemania But that's neither here nor there.
   • Putting USD in front of $100,000 seems a bit much.
     • US?
       • How about nothing? There was nothing there in discussion of the same events on Jason Reso. Seems an overlink.
         • Removed. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
   • Villains = cool dudes amusing the fans ?
     • Yes. They amused the fans, whatever city they were they'd wear the jersey's of the sports teams, until they take the jersey off and have the rival jersey on.
       • Okay. That can probably be better explained in the article prose.
         • I still think this doesn't come across in the article, and "five second pose" and "for the benefit of those with flash photography" should have conspicuous sources.
           • Alright, if you see here, Copeland talks about the "five second pose". --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
   • Tables, Ladders, and Chairs match has been abbreviated to (TLC) in its first instance; why not just use TLC for later instances?
     • People sometimes don't read the lead, so it'd be best to have it said in the lead, and later in the prose.
       • I actually was referring to the Edge and Christian (1998–2001) section: which ultimately led to the creation of the Tables, Ladders, and Chairs match (TLC) and They also competed as a team in the first three Tables, Ladders, and Chairs matches in the next paragraph.
         • Got ya, got it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
   • Throughout mid-2001, Edge was placed in a feud with William Regal for the Intercontinental Championship. Wasn't this actually in 2002?
     • No, it was in late 2001. [1]
       • So were Royal Rumble (2002) and No Way Out (2002) in late 2001, then? ;)
         • Got it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
   • Two months later, he would end up winning the WWE Tag Team Championship (later renamed the World Tag Team Championship) alongside Hulk Hogan on July 4, 2002.[51] Later in the year, Edge and Rey Mysterio won the the newly established WWE Tag Team Championship from the team of Kurt Angle and Chris Benoit.[52] It needs to be clearer that these are two distinct titles. I see that that's attempted with the word "newly established," but the potential for confusion is great, especially as the name change for the "red" belts coincided exactly with the creation of the "blue" belts.
     • Do you have a suggestion?
       • How about Edge and Rey Mysterio won the WWE Tag Team Championship, a new championship that had been specifically created for the SmackDown! brand to parallel the RAW brand's World Tag Team Championship.
         • Done.
   • In February 2003, Edge suffered a legitimate neck injury and had to undergo surgery with Dr. Lloyd Youngblood.[53] Recovery kept him sidelined for close to a year. He was placed on the Raw brand in the WWE Draft after WrestleMania XX and returned to in-ring action shortly after that event. WrestleMania's in April, right? So February 2003 to after April 2004 is not "close to a year," it's over a year. Unless I'm misreading this.
     • WrestleMania XX was in March 2004. 21, 22, 23, and 25 were in April. 24 was in March.
   • Shawn Michaels (acting as special guest referee) would perform a superkick on Edge, in retaliation for an accidental spear by Edge Conditional tense? Odd. What's wrong with "Michaels performed a superkick"
     • You're right, it does read odd. Added your suggestion.
   • Edge faced even more scorn from the fans due to his adulterous affair with WWE Diva Amy Dumas, known on-screen as Lita. I'd use Copeland's here instead of his. It's a little clunky, but I think it fits better than 'Edge having an affair with Amy Dumas.'
     • Done.
   • causing Hardy to have "excessive blood loss". Significance of the quotes? I assume the phrase is present in citation #69.
     • The quote in the ref. says ---> "A bloody Hardy gets pummeled until the ref decides he's had enough and stops the match." I replaced the ref., though, with the term present.
   • They also fought in a Steel cage match at Unforgiven in September that saw Hardy win. This is something with which I sometimes have difficulties, too - avoid anthropomorphizing. What saw Hardy win? The cage match? How does a cage match see anything?
     • How 'bout ---> "They also fought in a Steel cage match at Unforgiven in September that saw Hardy defeat Edge"?
       • What's problematic is the phrase "that saw." Just say "in which Hardy defeated Edge" or "Hardy defeated Edge in a steel cage match at Unforgiven later in the year."
         • Added your first suggestion. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
   • Edge used his victory over Foley to once again challenge John Cena for the WWE Championship. What does one thing necessarily have to do with the other?
     • Reworded.
   • At the event, he lost the championship after Cena performed the FU on him If not explained in prose, a link to a description of "FU" should probably be provided.
     • The "FU" is already linked in the first paragraph of the section.
   • Pedantic, but source for the name "La Familia?" There's no conspicuous source for it here or on La Familia (professional wrestling).
     • I can't find anything, but I do remember the commentators calling them "La Familia". I'll keep looking.
       • Well, I won't hold up GA if this proves to be the only problem (and it seems it might be), but if you're looking down the line to FA, I'd try to take care of it.
         • I have no interest in getting this article to FA, I assure you that. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
   • Edge lost the World Heavyweight championship to The Undertaker when he tapped out to the gogoplata, a submission maneuver by Undertaker. Last clause is redundant.
     • I think I got it.
   • the entire WWE Raised this on the Jason Reso review: the definite article in front of "WWE" is jarring.
     • Replaced.
   • Edge took his frustrations out on Vickie because he lost the title and told her the wedding was off. First time we're hearing about any wedding. Indeed, the only prior mention of the pairing is The following SmackDown! show saw Edge and General Manager Vickie Guerrero make their relationship public which could be taken to mean any of a number of things.
     • They became engaged on Valentine's Day (in 2008), hence why he "called off" the wedding, but re-proposed the following week.
       • But unless I glossed over it, like the link to FU, that's not mentioned in the prose.
         • Trust me, the FU is linked. Also, I added the proposing bit. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
   • In June, Edge won the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship (the seeming unified version of the World Tag Team Championship from the Raw brand and the WWE Tag Team Championship from the SmackDown brand) is rather inelegant. For one thing, seeming unified?
     • Removed "seeming" if that's what you meant.
   • his first pay-per-view match in the WWE
     • Where is this at?
       • Other media
         • What would you like me to do? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
           • Remove the definite article.
   • Copeland seems incredibly injury-prone. Every section in his career rundown ends with him sitting out several months to more than a year after getting hurt. Maybe this merits being highlighted (in the lead, maybe a subsection). Just thinking out loud here.
     • No, that wouldn't be a good idea. If the section were created, the info. would be out of control.
   • Significance of the bolding and italicizing in the "In wrestling" section?
     • The project's style guide says not to bold moves.
       • Right. I guess I just don't get why anything's bolded and italicized, but again, looking at pro wrestler FA's like Benjamin or CM Punk it looks like it's accepted.

   B. MOS compliance:

   • Surprisingly, no issues. The bulleted lists do stand out, but looking at a pro wrestler FA like Shelton Benjamin makes it seem like it's okay.
2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   • In an interview conducted after the event, on WWE.com, Edge announced that he and Lita would have "hot, nasty, sex" in the middle of the ring on Raw the following night to celebrate his victory. On Raw, Edge held up to that promise by engaging in foreplay with Lita until they were interrupted by Flair, who called Edge a disgrace and "dead in the bed". Flair, however, ended up on the receiving end of a con-chair-to on the announcers' table until Cena came out to Flair's aid and performed an FU on Lita. The "Live Sex Celebration" segment earned Raw a 5.2 rating Is this all covered by citation #78? Particularly "hot, nasty, sex" - all quotes need to be cited.
     • Added ref.
   • leading Edge to call himself the "most-watched WWE Champion in the last 5 years". Uncited quote.
     • Added source.
   • I assume the myspace has been independently verified as authentic. It's the only redflag on the checklinks tool.
     • Yes, that's his MySpace account.

   C. No original research:

   • Full sourcing in the "Championships and accomplishments" section
     • This is still a problem. The Pro Wrestling Illustrated and Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards contain no sources. Will removed unsourced awards from Jason Reso, but that's probably not necessary - wouldn't end of year awards have come out in the December or January editions of those magazines? That can be cited, can't it? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
       • I got lucky with Reso's WON awards. PWI awards come out sometimes in February the next year and sometimes in August of the year they are for. I'm not a subscriber to PWI, so I don't have enough knowledge to say exactly when the awards would've come out.--WillC 09:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: Images are all free use.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions and alternative text:

   • Images are all free use and have good captions. File:Edge2009.JPG lacks a description page, but the others all have them. Again, though, only the infobox picture has alt text. I encourage adding it to the other images.
7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: This one's in better shape than Reso, but I'll put it on hold all the same. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for the review. I hope I addressed your concerns. If not, please let me know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

   Good progress. I'll be back this afternoon to check the progress of Jason Reso, and probably pass this article. Some of my as-yet unaddressed comments exceed the GA criteria, so you don't necessarily need to address them if you're not looking to FAC with this article. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 13:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

   Well, hopefully I addressed your comments, so you can rest in peace with this review and Reso's. :) If not, again, please let me know. No, I don't have any intentions on getting this article to FAC. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

   Heh, well, I always review with FA at least at the back of my mind. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 01:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

   Struck resolved comments, but there's a little yet that can be done. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

   I commented on your concerns. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

   Take care of the sourcing issue (one way or another) and this should be good to pass. This is for a good article, not a great one, so every little thing I raise doesn't necessarily need to be satisfied. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

   I added sources to the PWI Awards, though, I've looked at other articles, about the whole WON thing, and they aren't sourced (ex: Shawn Michaels, Triple H, John Cena, etc). --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

   They all should be. Is there really any excuse for them to not? How do you even know they won these awards if you're not able to cite it? Nevertheless. I bent a bit to pass Reso, and while I'm more than a little uncomfortable bending this far, I'll go ahead and pass this one through. It certainly doesn't deserve to fail. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

   I just went ahead and removed the PWI awards. They can be added back in once a reliable ref comes along that covers them. The ref used gets its info directly from here and even states these claims. Recently discovered fact that not alot know. I assure you, that with time the article will become better.--WillC 02:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)