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]

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]

 Done, I think. It's very easy to miss one or two. Tromboneguy0186 03:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, or at least attempted. Tromboneguy0186 05:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 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]
 Done Tromboneguy0186 04:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:

 Done, though not exactly in that way. Tromboneguy0186 03:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 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]
 Done Tromboneguy0186 04:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Tromboneguy0186 04:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, by expanding it Tromboneguy0186 04:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done and rearranged slightly Tromboneguy0186 04:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Tromboneguy0186 04:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Tromboneguy0186 04:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Tromboneguy0186 04:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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-

 Done Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Your words are as good as mine :p Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 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]
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]
Wikilinked to independent circuit. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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]
 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]

Categories