- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Nominator(s): starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a professional wrestling (scripted, I know) pay-per-view event, held by WWE in Chicago in 2011. I'd say this pay-per-view and the storylines leading into it pushed CM Punk into top-tier status in professional wrestling. The main event between Punk and John Cena received a five out of five star rating from the most prominent wrestling journalist Dave Meltzer. The Professional Wrestling Torch Newsletter ranked the event as the best PPV in 2011 against other PPVs from WWE and three other wrestling companies.
I'm hoping that the third time's the charm as the previous two nominations stalled. After the second FAC failed, I did a second peer review, which was definitely more successful than the first. The article has also received copyedits from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors since the last FAC by Valfury and Baffle gab1978. The last professional wrestling FA was promoted nearly three years ago and I am hoping to add to the list.
Hopefully this meets the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Thank you. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't mention the sponsor in the lead (especially the opening line) unless it were in itself interesting in some way (it doesn't appear to be).
- Well, I didn't restore it since you removed it. starship.paint
- The Raw and SmackDown briefcases: the what?
- Rephrased. starship.paint
- while The Sun rated: coming right after Canoe, I'd have assumed this Sun was the Canadian chain (this isn't trivial---it's the largest newspaper chain in Canada).
- The event drew 195,000 pay-per-view [[Trade|buys]]: this couldn't possibly be linking where you intended---either way, it should be worded to be clearer rather than simply linked.
- Unlinked. I'm not sure how to phrase it better - there were 195,000 customers who bought the pay-per-view, but there might have been more who watched it. starship.paint
- The reviews in the last paragraph are perhaps a bit too much specific detail for the lead.
- I cut the previous year's event's rating. starship.paint
- What I'm thinking is that the whole second and third sentences of that paragraph should go—that "Money in the Bank 2011 was broadcast globally and received positive reviews" sufficiently covers it at the scope of the lead. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- [[wiktionary:Wikisaurus:sycophant|"ass-kisser"]]": this is WP:EGG, and not very helpful as far more people are familiar with the term "ass-kisser" than "sycophant". I'd just unlink it.
- Unlinked. I'm not sure how to phrase it better - there were 195,000 customers who bought the pay-per-view, but there might have been more who watched it. starship.paint
- By November 2010: "By" and not "in"?
- A secondary source reported the date in November 2010, but WWE could have made the announcement earlier. starship.paint
- Hmmm ... do you think you can hunt around for a source that might explicitly say when the announcement was made? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Searched, couldn't find a better reliable source. starship.paint
- John Cena defending the WWE Championship against: as in, Cena was the defending champion?
- That's right, is it not apparent? starship.paint
- In addition to breaking the fourth wall: where was the fourth wall broken?
- The source says that Punk "broke the fourth wall" waving to the camera before claiming to be the best wrestler in the world. What should be done? starship.paint
- If all he did was wave to the camera, I'd say that wasn't even signiicant enough to mention. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an extremely rare event for WWE. In addition, it fits in with his speech of rebellion. starship.paint
- The way it's worded, it's not clear (a) how he broke the fourth wall; or (b) why it's significant. "a" is the more important point---even after your telling me this, I still don't get that from the article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rephrased and added a new source. He literally said "I'm breaking the fourth wall." starship.paint
- Okay, well if it's addressing the camera that was the fourth wall-breaking, then that should be stated. I've added it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- removed wikilink starship.paint
- I see the words "signature ... maneuvre" with far too much frequency; I'm nto nearly familiar enough with wrestling terminology to know what other terms to use, though
- The only alternative is "signature move", I'm afraid. starship.paint
- Changed half of them. starship.paint
- In a scene reminiscent of the Montreal Screwjob: what, and in what way? starship.paint
- Montreal Screwjob was also orchestrated by Vince McMahon in a match for the WWE Championship. A wrestler was in a submission hold and did not submit, but it was ruled that he submitted and thus lost the match. starship.paint
- I tried. @Curly Turkey: starship.paint
- Hmmm ... I tried to tweak it a bit, but I'm not really satidfied with what I did. Whatever, it's good enough. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- despite Punk not submitting, McMahon signaled the referee to award Cena the match and sent Laurinaitis to ring the bell.: this is uncited.
- to immediately cash in his contract on Punk: what does this mean?
- If Del Rio "cashed in", he would have an immediate match against Punk for the WWE Championship. I reworded. starship.paint
- The Sun's Rob McNichol described the Raw Money in the Bank match as "a shade below it's [sic] Smackdown equivalent" but still "entertaining".: I don't think this is a good image caption—Wikipedia's not a magazine
- I just want to get the image into the article. Since the image is in the otherwise picture-barren Reception section, I gave it such a caption. Would you like to suggest another caption? starship.paint
- The Sun's Rob McNichol rated the event: again, following from a paragraph about Canoe.ca, many will assume this is about the Canadian chain (which is owned by the owners of canoe.ca)
- Punk made a surprise appearance at a show hosted by the independent All American Wrestling promotion without: a show hosted by a promotion?
- Promotion is equal to "company". Promotion appears a few times in the article, actually. starship.paint
- "Promotion" is equal to "company"? I'm not aware of that usage, and I image I'm not alone in that ignorance. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a wrestling term. Changed them. Infobox cannot be helped though starship.paint
- If you're going to use it more than once in an article, it might be good to gloss the term at the first instance, and then you have no worries for the rest of the article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- , a wrestler with cerebral palsy: is his cerebral palsy important to the narrative? If so, it should be explicated; otherwise, I'd drop it
- It's irrelevant to this event, but Punk's appearance, as per the source, was endorsing Iron as an inspiration for overcoming cerebral palsy. starship.paint
- If that's the case, then it should be said so, otherwise it comes off as just a random detail. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Explained. starship.paint
- I've changed the hard number of columsn in
((Reflist)) to a colwidth, as it's friendlier to a wider variety of screen sizes and dimensions (browsers will automatically adjust the number of columns). Feel free to change the width if you think it's too wide or narrow
- @Curly Turkey: Thank you for your comments. Do come back! starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I guess I returned. I've copyedited the whole article; feel free to revert anything you disagree with. I know almost nothing about wrestling (or sports in general) so I'll assume the level of play-by-play detail is appropriate. The article otherwise seems well organized and seems to hit all the bases but one: as this is the second Money in the Bank event, a brief description of what it is and how it came about would be helpful—it starts very suddenly with the WWE announcement of the event. Perhaps even a paragraph on it would be good. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Curly Turkey: Thank you very much for your extensive copyedit. Is your last query answered by my change to the lede? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see where you've added background on the series (I'd call that the most important missing piece). Also, there are those who would object to having a four-paragraph lead to a 19k article (per WP:LEADLENGTH). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tightened the lead; please let me know if there any issues with what I've done. Also, the lead is supposed to be a summary of what's in the body; this means you don't need inline cites in the lead unless what's there is particularly contentious. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Curly Turkey: hmm, let me explain. WWE holds 12 or 13 pay-per-views per year, which are special events compared to WWE's weekly TV programs. Money in the Bank 2011 is just one of the PPVs. The previous and next year, WWE held Money in the Bank 2010 and 2012, but the only similarity is that they feature Money in the Bank ladder matches. Money in the Bank is a theme for the PPV. starship.paint
- Okay, I've tweaked the opening line a bit more. If you're satisfied with that, then I'm almost ready to support on prose: I'd still like to see the background expanded as I stated about (and include the bits about the number of PPV events—everything in the lead should also be in the body), and I'd like to see that inline cite disappear from the lead. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Curly Turkey: I have shifted some information from the lead to the background section, I think everything in the lead is now covered in the body, including the number of PPV events. The reference has also migrated from the lead to the background. starship.paint
- Hmmm ... it's just about there. I like how you've rearranged the lead. The "Background" section, I think, needs just a tad more work—it starts with the announcement, and it isn't until the second paragraph that we find out what it is. Try to imagine this article on the main page—there will be many who will click through who have only a casual interest in wrestling. How does the "Background" section as written orient such a reader? I'd expect it to begin with something like: "The Money in the Bank series is a blah blah blah that began in blooh blooh, organized by Joe Blough to burp burp burp" or whatever. Since there was only one previous event, it might even be good to recap it in a sentence or so—whatever would help orient that casual reader. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Curly Turkey: the thing is that Money in the Bank is not really a series. MITB 2010 has nothing to do with MITB 2011 because they are one year apart in terms from storylines. The PPV before MITB 2011, WWE Capitol Punishment, would be more relevant because it is one month apart in terms of storylines. It's like Friends Season 2 Episode 6 is more relevant to Season 2 Episode 7 than Season 1 Episode 7 is. Capitol Punishment is already mentioned where it's relevant in the Storylines section regarding Orton and Christian. There isn't any real information on MITB as a series. It's organized by WWE. It began in 2010. That's it. starship.paint
- @Curly Turkey: I apologize for the late reply. Is there anything from WWE Money in the Bank you would like included in MITB 2011? The extraneous stuff at that article seems to be talking about 2012/13/14 events, not the 2010 one. starship.paint
- Well, something to clear things up---it's a series, but not really a series? It's an annual event, but it's just one of several such events in a year and there's no real continuity? It needs some sort of explanation for those who aren't steeped in the way the WWE works. There was an earlier event with the same name, which would lead someone (like me) to assume some strong connection with that event---which leads such a reader to think something's missing from the article. I sure wouldn't expect it to parallel something like your Friends example---for one thing, episodes don't normally share titles. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have thought about it and I think I understand your concerns. I'll have to write up an explanatory note. This might affect other articles as well, those like WWE Money in the Bank. However, one problem I foresee is that I am not sure if I can find a reliable source doing the same explaining that I will be doing. starship.paint
- Well, let's see what you can come up with. If there's no real history in RSes then there's nothing we can do about that, but the connection with other Money in the Banks surely can be clarified somehow. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Curly Turkey: Check out the background section! starship.paint
- Alright, I'd move that to the first paragraph, though, and rather than emphasize the lack of connection to the previous event, I'd simply mention that the storylines carry on from the ongoing season (year? I don't know how it works). How does something like this work:
- The previous Money in the Bank in 2010 featured a main event involving John Cena. The ongoing storylines in WWE's weekly television programs provided the background to the 2011 event, which continued the storylines from the previous event in WWE's 2011 pay-per-view schedule, Capitol Punishment.
- Of course, this will still need a citation. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Curly Turkey: Implemented. The first sentence is now cited. The second sentence is backed up by the entire Storylines section ... how about shifting this paragraph to Storylines? starship.paint
- Alright, I guess it's fine. If you ever do find any sources that can give a bit more detail to the background of how the event came to be, I strongly urge you to add it. The article as it is I think is fine now, and I give it my support. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My (relatively minor) concerns from the previous FAC have been addressed, it's looking great.LM2000 (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article looks okay, but the prose needs some work.
- Lead
- "while Daniel Bryan won the match for wrestlers from the SmackDown brand for a similar opportunity for the World Heavyweight Championship." - isn't it the same opportunity? "similar" makes it seem like there may be a difference between winning it for Raw and for SmackDown.
- "Money in the Bank 2011 was broadcast globally and received positive reviews" - the name of the event was "Money in the Bank" not "Money in the Bank 2011" (as it says on the poster) so it's probably better to drop the 2011 from this line - I know it's a re-occuring event but each event is only called "Money in the Bank"
- Both settled. starship.paint
- Production
- "Tickets went on sale in May 2011 through Ticketmaster with prices ranging from $25 to $300.[3]" - I don't think ticket information is needed, is it? I don't know that I've ever seen pricing information in any concert/event article.
- Umm, the information was out there, and I added it to be comprehensive. starship.paint
- Well there's a lot of information that may exist but not belong in an encyclopedia. I'd say this falls in that category. Gloss 19:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's such a bad thing to have in an article of this length. The only concern I'd have would be how well it integrates with the surrounding prose. If it doesn't fit well, it could be shunted into a footnote. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Raw and SmackDown should be linked the first time they appear in the "storylines" section
-
- Nope, but it's not a big deal. Gloss 19:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "he and not Cena was "the best in the world"" - rewording might make this sound better, something like "he, rather than Cena, was "the best in the world""
- while the image of Punk and Cena is good because it's from the event, a solo picture of Punk or Cena might be better in this spot (maybe of Cena, since Punk has a solo picture later in the article). The article has plenty of other pictures from the event and this one isn't of great quality and also only shows Punk's back, so it's not doing a great job of presenting him.
- Just adding a comment that although I supported I'd still like to see this swap made. Gloss 02:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gloss: How's the new photo? Might be a bit old but it's the only good one of him with the championship. Otherwise I think I settled all your concerns so far. starship.paint
- It's better. Gloss 04:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Their rivalry started on the May 6 episode of " - might be better to stay "their storyline started" since the two have had a rivalry in the past, so to say it started on May 6th is slightly misleading
- "At Capitol Punishment, Orton defeated Christian" - can we give this a time frame? I'm not sure when it was but for example "Two months prior at Capitol Punishment" or "Three years ago at Capitol Punishment"
- going back a little, "On the next Raw" should probably be "On the next episode of Raw" - I wasn't sure about it at first but later on in the article I see "On the June 24 episode of SmackDown" so it should stay consistent - also a little bit later on "July 1 SmackDown" needs to be kept consistent
- "The Raw Money in the Bank competitors were announced" - Raw should be italicized, I believe
- In this case it refers to the Raw brand, not the Raw TV show, so no italics. starship.paint
- "Show knocked out Henry" - has "Show" ever been used as a nickname for him? It's not his last name, so "Big Show" should be used whenever he's mentioned. It'd be like saying Taker instead of Undertaker.
- "Show knocked out Henry before the bout began. This created a rivalry between the two; Henry interfered in Big Show's match with Alberto Del Rio at Capitol Punishment and on the June 27 episode of Raw in a cage match." - sentences should be mixed a little better.. try "Big Show knocked out Henry before the bout began, creating a rivalry between the two. Henry interfered in Big Show's match with Alberto Del Rio at Capitol Punishment and on the June 27 episode of Raw in a cage match."
- The July11ST reference maybe. Never mind, "Big Show is better, thanks. starship.paint
- the use of the word "advertised" in the last paragraph of "storylines" seems a bit awkward, "announced" would sound better
- "Kelly had been feuding with the Bella Twins since May" - if not including a year such as "May 2011" then remove "since May" and say "for three months"
- Done, thanks. starship.paint
- Event
- "Barrett got Bryan onto his shoulders and tried to throw him off the ladder" - the repetition of "the ladder" in this and the previous sentence is noticeable. you can leave it as "tried to throw him off" here (we know they're still on the ladder)
- "Henry gained a two-count after slamming Big Show back against the mat with his World's Strongest Slam move. Henry then performed the World's Strongest Slam again and two running splashes for the pinfall victory" - repetition of "World's Strongest Slam" makes it sound awkward. the second time you can just say "Henry then performed the move again"
- "Henry wrapped a chair around Show's ankle and injured it by jumping on it." - injured the chair or injured the ankle? Just kidding, but rewording this would help too.. as well as not calling him "Show" again --- "Henry injured Big Show by jumping on a chair wrapped around his ankle."
- Reworded differently. starship.paint
- "Orton was enraged; he kicked Christian in the groin" ---> "An enraged Orton kicked Christian in the groin"
- "Punk kicked out of two of Cena's signature Attitude Adjustment move" ---> "Punk kicked out of Cena's signature Attitude Adjustment move twice"
- Reworded differently. starship.paint
- "thirty" --> 30 (with a number higher than ten, it's usually safe to not need to spell it out)
- the part about the Montreal Screwjob confused me a little at first. I would explain what happened at Money in the Bank first, and then say how it was reminiscent of the Screwjob.
- Raw needs to be italicized again
- See my comment above regarding Raw. starship.paint
- references should read in numerical order. at the end of both paragraphs in the main event match section, it reads [5][4][25]
- Done, thanks. starship.paint
Will return with comments on the rest later. Gloss 21:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reception
- "which was an increase of 18.2% from the 165,000 of the previous year's" -- add "event" to the end of the sentence
- link to the 2012 MITB
- "Money in the Bank 2011 received" - again, the event is only titled MITB not MITB 2011 (this pops up again later in the section "Dave Hillhouse at the Canadian Online Explorer's said Money in the Bank 2011" and one last time at the end of the section)
- Three comments above settled. starship.paint
- the second paragraph needs to be expanded a little bit more, or just made a bit clearer. who was the event competing against for the title of Best Event? that's explained at the end of the third paragraph but it should be explained here as well… the last sentence can probably be tied into the one before it, just to ensure the reader still knows we're talking about a wrestling observer award
- "Alex Roberts of the Professional Wrestling Torch Newsletter attended the event. He criticized the ladder matches for exemplifying higher risks for smaller returns" - it's not really important that he attended. you can cut out "attended the event. He"
- The live experience is different from the perspective of a person watching the PPV on television. He's better able to judge the crowd's response, which was a part in the review. starship.paint
- The image caption needs a little re-wording. "Several wrestlers jostle on top of the ladders while trying to unhook the briefcase during the Raw Money in the Bank match." - the tense is confusing. maybe change "jostle" to "jostling" and then remove the period, since it's not a complete sentence
- "Hillhouse rated the main event 8 out of 10 and the overall event 6 out of 10." - earlier in the section you use "five out of five" and "four out of five" but now we're back into numbers. these should all be written out
- Actually, I think we're seeing way too much of how many stars are being given. Perhaps take some of those out. It feels like every other sentence is how many stars someone gave the event and it's over doing it.
- The info about the rating on the 2010 MITB can be taken out. If there is a main MITB event page that talks about all of the events, it could go there. But it's not relevant to the 2011 event.
- Aftermath
- Links are needed all around for the first time some thing appear in the section: WWE championship, the arena, Vince McMahon, The Miz, Rey Mysterio, Cena, Del Rio, World Heavyweight Championship, Daniel Bryan, Sheamus, Kelly Kelly
- WP:OVERLINK -> Generally, a link should appear only once in an article starship.paint
- Give a time frame for SummerSlam and Survivor Series so the reader knows when it's happening. "at SummerSlam the following month" and "at Survivor Series that November" would work
More to come, I'd guess. Gloss 19:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are also dead links and links that have had the path change. See here. Gloss 19:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated the links to the best of my ability starship.paint
- I'm going to go ahead and say that I support this candidacy. I may have a few more minor points to address for further improvement, but none will likely affect my support. Great job on the article, I can see that you went through almost a year of work to get to this point and I hope it pays off at the end of this thing. Gloss 20:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much!)) starship.paint
Coord notes -- just a reminder that this nomination will need:
- Image review
- Source review for formatting and reliability
- Spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, as I believe it would be the nominator's first FA if successful
Will post requests for these at WT:FAC in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - all OK
I fixed all minor issues, listed points are merely comments and tips for future nominations:
- Captions with full sentences should end in periods, incomplete captions should not (fixed).
- File:Money_in_the_Bank_(2011).jpg - "fair use" OK, make sure non-free images do not exceed 100,000 pixels usually (fixed).
- Make sure, all image source links are valid and active, or an archive link is provided, where possible (fixed for Cena image).
- All other images are CC or Public Domain - OK.
- Flickr-images have been reviewed and show no signs of problems - OK.
- File:Cena_With_Spinner_Belt.jpg - technically the quoted permission statement would not be sufficient, but works by US military personnel are PD anyway, regardless of additional declarations - OK.
- Included, probably copyrighted, elements like the WWE logo should be de minimis - OK.
- All images have sufficient source and author info - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference/Formatting Comments from Ceranthor
- What makes wrestleview.com a reliable source?
- What makes pwinsider.com a reliable source?
- What makes profightdb.com a reliable source?
- Easier for me to replace it with a f4wonline.com source. starship.paint
- Why does source 31 include this blurb: "McMahon's actions included an attempted Montreal-esque Chicago Screwjob... Cena locked in the STF. It was then The Chairman of the Board made his way to the ring with WWE Executive Vice President John Laurinaitis for a potential screwing not seen since Survivor Series 1997."?
- HAT'S WHAT I DO starship.paint
- You need to stay consistent in using both date and accessdate for ((cite web)) For example, why does source 62 list the date of publication while source 63 doesn't? ceranthor 20:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ceranthor Cite web dates are gone. Are dates fine for cite journal or cite press release? starship.paint
- Looks good to me. Sorry for the delay! And yes, dates are typically included for both so that's totally fine. ceranthor 18:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- YEA-OH! I mean ... the wait was nothing. Thank you! :) starship.paint
Technical note. Someone is a) using "blue" templates throughout this FAC, and b) not signing their entries, so I can't tell who is doing it. Templates are discouraged at FAC because they get double-counted when FACs are transcluded to archives, and template-limits can be exceeded in archives, causing FACs to be cut off (among other odd and random errors). Please sign your entries, and please remove all of the "Blue" templates from the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. It's me. Hope I have fixed it. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much ... few editors are aware of this template-limits problem, so I highlight it whenever I encounter it. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks
- dead link
- Parts of the Roberts paragraph need further paraphrasing, or direct quoting. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikkimaria: thank you, I have tried to fix both. starship.paint
- @Nikkimaria: You okay re. the spotcheck? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's better now. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Last thing -- generally, all paragraphs should end with a citation; pls take care of the first para in Storyline accordingly. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
.jpg){kind=link}
