Talk:Briscoe Brothers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBriscoe Brothers has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 15, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Proposed merger[edit]

There simply isn't a need for three articles on the brothers. Their singles careers are negligible compared to their history as a team, and in the research I'm doing I'm finding that virtually all claims can be assessed to the two of them. Any claim about one or the other can still work in the article on the team. If all three articles are kept, they're all going to have pretty much the same content. Tromboneguy0186 10:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, there is no need for three articles that say the exact same thing. It would be a good idea to merge them all into this page. Nikki311 13:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per Nikki311. Note that The Highlanders (who have teamed most of their career) have their own page, not individual pages for Robbie and Rory. I suggest the page turns into a Redirect. Davnel03 15:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, give me about a week and I'll be done with my quasi-rewrite of this article. At that point, I'll turn Mark Pugh, Jamin Pugh, Mark Briscoe, Jay Briscoe, Jay Pugh, and anything else there might be into redirects to this article. Tromboneguy0186 14:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it only took three days :) All the relevant article titles now redirect to this one, and my actually pretty serious rewrite of this article is complete. Tromboneguy0186 21:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-GA comments[edit]

  • Citations go after punctuation, including commas, parenthesis, colons, periods, etc. I see at least a couple of instances where this needs to be fixed.
 Done, I think. It's very easy to miss one or two. Tromboneguy0186 03:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:LEAD, the lead needs to be expanded. It is supposed to generally summarize their career. Take a look at some of the other wrestling Good Articles if you need help with ideas. For an article this long, it should be about 3-4 paragraphs. Remember to cite the lead paragraph, as well.
 Done, or at least attempted. Tromboneguy0186 05:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verb cleanup: unless a sentence is indicating something that may happen in the future, it is best to leave out the word would. For example, it would seem should be it seemed and but would both fall should be but both fell. It read more actively.
 Done, but take a look at how I phrased the would-have-been Rottweilers feud at the end of the "Ring of Honor" section. I don't know if it's OR or more poor wording or something, but it just isn't sitting right with me. Tromboneguy0186 04:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dates: for the sake of consistency, months and years should be written May 2000 instead of May of 2000. This specific example is in the early life section.
 Done Tromboneguy0186 04:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You rely very much on Online World of Wrestling. Are there no interviews or articles on the team that could substitute for some of these results? It isn't a huge deal, but a lot of people look down on the site.
Not really. The best comparison is CM Punk, and he's got at least four shoot interview DVD's out there from his indy days, plus plenty of WWE content now. The Briscoe Brothers have exactly zero shoot DVD's. Most of the OWW refs are simply card and results, though. Tromboneguy0186 03:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's my input. Hopefully somebody else will also help you out. Nikki311 21:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Other than what Nikki already said ..and the lead definitely needs to be expanded, this is what I found:

  • Lead paragraph, second sentence: I think promotions is supposed to be promotion without the s on the end.
    • I read the sentence wrong, pay no attention to that comment. --Naha|(talk) 04:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: The parenthesis is in the wrong place:
    • It should be read "...(ROH Beating the Odds) to explain an absence from which they were returning."
    • not
    • "...(ROH Beating the Odds, to explain an absence from which they were returning)."
 Done, though not exactly in that way. Tromboneguy0186 03:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: This is the first time the World Wrestling Federation is mentioned in the article, and as such there you must introduce your acronym:
 Done, kinda. This is the ONLY place I refer to the World Wrestling Federation, WWF, or WWE. Is it necessary to include the acronym in that case? Tromboneguy0186 03:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you never refer to it again, then no you do not need the acronym. It just needs to be spelled out in place of the acronym that was there :)--Naha|(talk) 05:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • After you have introduced it once, in the remainder of the article you may refer to it simple as "the WWF" :)
  • Early life, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: It just doesn't read well. Trying adding the word "while" so it reads "They first became interested in wrestling while watching..."
 Done Tromboneguy0186 04:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: Please wikilink trampoline and ring.
 Done Tromboneguy0186 04:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: They taped their moves and worked on improving them.
    • This sentence is way too short and uninteresting. Try to combine it with another sentence.
 Done, by expanding it Tromboneguy0186 04:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life, 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence: They did not participate in amateur wrestling as youths, despite the fact that their dad was a coach for their high school's team.
    • Please wikilink amateur wrestling.
    • For clarification's sake, add the word "wrestling" as the second to last word of the sentence, so it reads ...their high school's wrestling team.
 Done and rearranged slightly Tromboneguy0186 04:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life, 2nd paragraph, 5th sentence: A promoter for the East Coast Wrestling Association asked their mother Janna, as she was purchasing tickets to a wrestling event, if they had a tape.
    • It doesn't read well this way and could easily be made more interesting Try moving it around to something like While their mother, Janna, was in line purchasing tickets to attend a wrestling event, a promoter for the East Coast Wrestling Association (ECWA) approached her and asked if her sons had a tape of themselves wrestling.
 Done Tromboneguy0186 04:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sentence is where the ECWA acronym needs to be introduced (as I have done above), not the next sentence. Please add it in here.
 Done Tromboneguy0186 04:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a date for this fact or any of the other facts in this paragraph? It is good to try to establish a time line.
  • Early life, 2nd paragraph, the whole paragraph - poor prose:
    • 4 (in a row) out of 6 sentences start with the word "They" which makes for a boring read. Try to change it up and eliminate at least 2 of the "theys" and try not to have them start back to back sentences if possible.
 Done Tromboneguy0186 04:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything in the 2nd paragraph ofthe Early life section needs to have citations. You have to back up your claims! :)
It's all in citation six. Is it insufficient to leave that at the end of the paragraph? Do I need to go in and put the same ref at the end of each sentence? Tromboneguy0186 03:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I was using MLA citations in a paper for a college class, no. I would just need the one citation at the end like you have it in this article. The reason I brought it up was because I didn't realise that one citation was for all of them. I don't know of a way to make it obvious that is the case ...or if it even needs to be obvious. Nikki is the citation queen, maybe she can answer this? :) --Naha|(talk) 05:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to leave you with just that for now because its a lot to swallow for just having reviewed a small percentage of the article. Try to incorporate as many of our suggestions as possible into the article and check the rest of the article where similar improvments could be made. After you have done this, let me know and I will be more than happy to come back and review the rest of the article if you wish :) Cheers, --Naha|(talk) 01:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both so much :) Some of these are still remnants from when this was in my userspace and I was glossing over a few things thinking I'd get back to them later. I'll get started on your suggestions later tonight! Tromboneguy0186 02:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

Looks pretty good to this non-wrestling fan, I have some things that because I'm not a fan, I felt should be explained more to make the article understandable to non-fans

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    some minor inssues with abbreviations in the prose and sentences
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    caption should explain where the picture was taken
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    after a few prose tweaks, should be good to go

Tweaks-

  • Lede section, third paragraph, what does ROH stand for?
 Done Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life section, second paragraph, the first paragraph's ending is a bit awkwardly worded, perhaps try "The brothers first became interested in wrestling in their youth by watching World Wrestling Federation on one of the two channels their television could receive."
 Done Your words are as good as mine :p Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section and paragraph, the flow between the third from last and the second from last sentence is very choppy, perhaps reword, or at least give a time context for when their mother was approached, were the boys still in high school? College?
 Done Added another sentence to help the flow and give further context. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I read it now, it still doesn't seem quite logical, but this is really all the context the source gives. I can assume that the Pugh family frequently bought tickets to wrestling events in their area and/or that the promoter knew Jay and Mark were good athletes who could, if trained, become skilled wrestlers, but obviously I can't do that in the article. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrestling career section, Combat Zone Wrestling subsection, the first sentence should have "Combat Zone Wrestling (CZW)" so that readers like me who don't follow wrestling at all know what the CZW abbreviation used later is for.This holds true for all the abbreviations used in the article, they should all be explained likewise, for JAPW, PWG, PWU etc.
Well, the reason I didn't do this is because the article is sectioned by promotion. If it really is too much to ask to have ==Combat Zone Wrestling== and then "CZW" a line later unexplained, I'll change it, but it didn't seem to be to me. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends on who you are expecting to read this article. Non-fans will not necessarily snap to the fact that the the subheadings are related to the abbreviations, and throwing out jargon can be jarring to folks that don't understand it. Perhaps include the abbreviation in the subheading line like so ===Combat Zone Wrestling (CZW)===? If you're set on not including it, I won't hold the article back, but I'm trying to keep in mind the non-wrestling fan here. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "set on" anything, just talking through it. Usually when an acronym is used, it's best to give the full name first and then the acronym in parentheses (like with "East Coast Wrestling Association (ECWA)") I certainly don't want to put the parenthetical in the section header. I'll put the full names in the article prose. Consider it  Done Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, subsection and paragraph, what is "indy circuit"?
Wikilinked to independent circuit. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, Return to Ring of Honor subsection, the last paragraph is only one sentence and should be merged or deleted, as one and two sentence paragraphs are choppy.
I moved it into the previous paragraph. That's a recent fact (a couple weeks ago), and was added by someone other than me. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictures, only one but it's free. The caption should state where the picture was taken though, to give it some context.
 Not done It's not my picture, it was just here with the old version of this article. I'll try to track down the person who took it. The image page says it was taken at an ROH show in Cincinnati in 2006, but that's troublesome because ROH has never had a show in Cincinnati (only Dayton and Cleveland). I'll work on that. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe try this for now, while you try to figure out the correct provenence of the picture, "Mark (left) and Jay (right), claimed to have been taken at a ROH show in Cincinnati"? Ealdgyth | Talk 20:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've included "at a Ring of Honor event in 2006." If it becomes clear where (it's most likely Dayton, but I can't say for certain), I'll include that later on. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, a good article. I certainly now know more about pro wrestling than I did when I started! I've placed the nomination on hold for seven days to let you address these small issues. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! I've passed it and taken care of the epaperwork! Good work! Ealdgyth | Talk 22:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last reversion was done by me[edit]

I'd forgotten to sign in. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Briscoe_Brothers&oldid=1206435844"