Previous peer review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to reach FA status, and I want to know what needs to be done to nominate it for FA. Note that there is no reception section like other PPV articles because this event is older than the other ones and plus that this event was never released on VHS and WWE releases no records of it.

Thanks, S_RX 19:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "During the main event, The Undertaker defeated Steve Austin in a single match (with Shane McMahon as the guest referee) to win the WWF Championship"

"During"?? D.M.N. (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm yea, what's wrong with that?--S_RX 20:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wording sounds like this happened "during the main event" as in, aside from the main event, or while the main event was occurring - like this wasn't the main event, but it happened when the main event was taking place. Confusing, sorry. iMatthew 20:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I changed it to "In the main event."--S_RX 20:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giants2008 - Apparently, I've become the go-to guy for wrestling peer reviews. This review interests me because of the Owen Hart tragedy. I always like to see new things in articles, and the accident gives this a uniqueness that could prove beneficial at FAC. Here are some specific comments.

• Background: "which Austin declined to do so." Drop so.

Done.--S_RX 22:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "when The Undertaker threw Austin off the Raw is War stage entrance, in reality..." Change the comma to a semi-colon.

Done--S_RX 22:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After taking another look at the sentence, I still don't like it even after the change. I recommend this structure: "when The Undertaker threw Austin off the Raw is War stage entrance after a match between Austin and The Rock; in reality he was thrown from the stage onto a soft surface." Giants2008 (17-14) 21:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Triple H's real name from the match summary to the third paragraph.

Done--S_RX 22:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a limited amount of time, so let's get to the good part: "Before the event, the entrance was tested on the November 15, 1998 episode of Sunday Night Heat, which Hart successfully performed." The word which leads to some awkwardness; that's not uncommon but still can be fixed without much difficulty. Try "and Hart successfully landed".

Done.--S_RX 22:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "to prevent footage of the incident being shown to the viewers." Probably should be "to prevent footage of the incident from being shown to the viewers."

Done.--S_RX 22:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "The fans in attendance weren't told any information..." Please change the contraction.

Done.--S_RX 22:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Aftermath: "because the event was never being released on VHS or DVD due to Hart's death."

Done.--S_RX 22:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "After the court case extended one year and one half..." An easier way to say it would be "# of months..."

Done.--S_RX 22:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Criticism: Badd Blood: In Your House is misspelled, according to the WWE Bad Blood page. It's possible that one is wrong, but obviously there's a typo somewhere.

Not done. In 1999, the event was spelled by the WWF as "Badd" Blood. When WWE used the event in 2003 again, they dropped the second d.--S_RX 22:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the other page needs work. Not only is the Bad Blood page wrong, it's contradicting itself. Not vital for the purposes of this article, however. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has great potential due to the unique nature of this PPV. It's not just another recap, due to the controversy. I did see some little issues, which add up at FAC. Still, I urge you to push forward with it, because I think it has a pretty good chance of passing with some more cleanup work. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will try to get a copyedit before FAC, if you have time, more comments would be appreciated.--S_RX 22:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The U.S. dollar link can be removed from the lead. As a U.S. topic, the use of the American dollar is assumed. Also put non-breaking spaces in the middle of $18 million both times that it appears, like I've done here.
• Aftermath: "At King of the Ring, lost a ladder match". (Steve) Austin has accidentally been omitted from this sentence.
• Background: "Austin retaliated on these actions..." More typical usage would be, "Austin retaliated for these actions..."
• Third paragraph of Background: Space needed after Triple H's real name in parentheses.
• "The Rock was portrayed as having an injured arm requiring a cast to be worn," Try "requiring that a cast be worn", and change the comma after this to a semi-colon.
• Parentheses mark missing after Mick Foley.
• "a singles match that featured Faarooq and Shamrock ended in "No Contest"" This is inconsistent with the usage earlier in the section, and the link is a duplicate.
• Event: Remove the caps from HEAT in Sunday Night Heat.
• Something is funny in reference 23 (Sunday Night Heat episode). Looks like the episode number isn't included.
• Criticism: I'd like to see the text explain who a couple of these people are. For example, say that Vince Russo was a script writer. Also, it should probably state that Hulk Hogan was a wrestler. This is to provide context for those who don't know them. Admittedly, this will be more useful for Russo than Hogan. Don't think this is essential for Bret Hart, since he was speaking as an angered brother of Owen. That's more than enough context to understand his rage. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• All done. Anything else ;)?--S_RX 22:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from GaryColemanFan -

• Although the "WWF cancels shows" article (reference 24) says three shows were cancelled, references 24 and 27 state that shows were cancelled in Winnipeg, Hamilton, Ottawa, and Montreal. That seems to be four shows.
• In addition, the next sentence says that "Traces of Over the Edge by WWE" are rare. "Traces" seems like a strange word choice, but that might just be me.
• The line about the lawsuit in the "Criticism" section could probably be removed, as it repeats information from the "Aftermath" section.
• "At SummerSlam 1999, Mankind, who was eventually scripted into the match, defeated Triple H and Steve Austin, who had defeated The Undertaker before this event to win the title, in a triple threat match to win the WWF Championship." - this is a long, complicated sentence.
• I wrote the "Criticism" section mainly with print sources that I had sitting around, which I only collected for a week or so after Hart's death. This leaves the article with a bit of an abrupt ending, as the WWF's statement says that they ahd no information. What do you think about adding the follow-up statement that they posted on their website? It's found here: "Our thoughts and prayers go out to the entire Hart family. We have to be strong for Owen; he was an extraordinary human being and consummate performer and knows that the highest tribute that we can pay is to go on entertaining the fans he loved so much." GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• All done. Anything else :)?--S_RX 22:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nikki:

• Is it Raw Is War or Raw is War? I thought it was the latter, but I could be wrong.
• "The rivalry continued to develop the following Monday on Raw Is War, as Triple H threw Austin off the stage entrance onto a soft surface, which was portrayed as a concrete floor." - the end of this sentence sounds sloppy. A rewording is in order.
• In various places in the article, both "No Contest" and no contest appear. Be consistent.

Nikki311 03:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's Raw is War, I reworded the sentence, and I used consistency for No Contest.--S_RX 03:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

• "In storyline, The" – "In the storyline, The"

Fixed.--TRU_CO 02:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "abduction resulted in Vince allowing The Undertaker to have controlling interest over the WWF." – "abduction caused Vince to allow The Undertaker have controlling interest over the WWF."

Fixed.--TRU_CO 02:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Chrishomingtang

• Is ((see also|Professional wrestling)) necessary for the background section? Seems random to me. Also is redundant since the lead already has it wikilinked.

Well it was decided to do that after previous wrestling FACs.--TRU_CO 02:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In the criticism section, "It was disgusting....For kids to see that, for this to be so-called family entertainment, for them to just carry on as if nothing had happened, is just sad." I thought it should be three dots, though I could be wrong.

It's a quote, but I don't think changing that effects it: changed.--TRU_CO 02:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original source that I took the quote from had the full statement. To capture the main points succinctly, I removed some words. Because there was a sentence break within the missing words, a fourth period is needed. It's not a big deal, but I re-added it because it is grammatically correct. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a well written and interesting article —Chris! _ct 01:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this version.
Lead

• Not too thrilled that it opens with a single sentence.
• "is most memorable"

I doubt this should be phrased as such. "Memorable" means "worth remembering". Substitute that into the sentence and read it. Does it seem appropriate?

• Launching straight into the Owen Heart incident casts the article as "Death of Owen Hart". Give a short sentence that "The event was well known in the wrestling industry for the accidental death of wrestler Owen Heart." or such, then cover the wrestling events. The last paragraph of the lead should then cover the brief details of Hart's death.
  • Reply: Okay, I removed the whole sentence about the "memorable" part, because I added the short sentence you mentioned after the intro sentence. Then I added the wrestling events prose right after that to make 1 paragraph, and then I left the Owen Hart accident prose as the second paragraph. Is it better in that way?--Tru_Co 15:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Background

• "'The event featured ten professional wrestling matches with different wrestlers involved in pre-existing scripted feuds, plots and storylines. Wrestlers were portrayed as either villains or fan favorites as they followed a series of tension-building events, which culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches."

How about building up to this instead of defining and explaining the pre-events...

"Over the Edge was the culmination of various scripted plots and storylines. For three months before the event, several rounds of WWF wrestling matches and background stories were played out to create feuds between various wrestlers, casting them as villians and fan favorites."

The next paragraph continues the line of thought by going into the history. The number of matches in the event can be mentioned later as we get to talking about it proper. On a side note, is there no better term than "fan favorites"?

• "In storyline"

Huh??? I have the feeling that this phrase is not common and is not also used as it should be... If it was established at the start that a storyline was built to culminate at Over the Edge, the narration can continue without constantly trying to assert out-of-universe perpective.

Suggestion: "The narrative for Over the Edge continues the events that unfolded at Backlash, WWF's previous pay-per-view event held on April 25, 1999. There, the Undertaker (Mark Calaway) abducted Stephanie MacMahon, the daughter of the WWF Chairman Vince McMahon. Undertaker's price for Stephanie's return was the control of the wrestling organization. However, his plans were thwarted by the then WWF Champion Steve Austin, who rescued Stephanie and denied the Undertaker his ransom. This plot development set up a feud between the two wrestlers, which would be settled in a match for the Championship at Over the Edge. WWF further built up the rivalry between Undertaker and Austin by having them attack each other in other wrestling programmes before their showdown. On May 3, Undertaker threw Austin off the stage, and two weeks later, the WWF Champion handcuffed his title challenger to a crucifix, which was raised above the ring."

• The whole delivery comes across as heavily proseline ("On xx yyy, 19zz"), and over detailed. I think it is needless to point out every twist and turn in the story, or on what episode this or that happened. Just deliver the backstory as a direct as possible. The de-emphasis on an out-of-universe is overly heavy. It could be established without "as Triple H threw Austin off the stage entrance onto a soft surface, which was portrayed on television as a harder surface." and such. See the above example on how these details can be reduced. I sincerely believe if done so, this section can be cut down to two substanceful paragraphs, excluding the introductory paragraph.
  • Reply: I replaced/reworded the intro paragraph, with a tweak or two. I also used you example to cut down the first background, with a couple of tweaks that I deemed necessary due to other sections. I will continue to work on the other feuds to cut down.--Tru_Co 16:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Event

• I am not sure what relevance the pre-event Sunday Night Heat has for Over the Edge. None of its matches had an impact on the developments in the subject. It feels like having to describe the television programme that broadcasted before the Simpsons or Heroes... Taking it out does not hurt comprehensiveness, but instead keeps the article compact and focused on the subject.
  • Reply: SNH is treated like a half-time show, which it is literally not, but because it takes place in the same arena and place as the PPV, so it take place in the Over the Edge stage set, ring set, etc. except the program is billed Sunday Night Heat, so its necessary because feuds or announcements could take place during this time and it is literally part of the "event."--Tru_Co 16:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary matches

• "Kane lifted Henry by the throat and slammed him down to perform a chokeslam."

I think it is better worded as "Kane performed a chokeslam on Henry, lifting him by the throat and slamming him down."

• "Next was a hardcore match – a match allowing no disqualification or countouts."

• "but were scripted to proceed into a brawl in the arena stands."

Suggestion: "but were scripted to move their brawl into the arena stands."

• "They traveled through the stands, ..."

They "traveled"??!! Aside from this, this clause seems repetitive with the previous sentence.

• "There, Holly drove Snow's head into a folding chair. Snow, however, retaliated by lifting Holly onto his shoulders and throwing him through a wooden table. Snow then covered and pinned Holly to win the WWF Hardcore Title."

Is it important to know Al Snow's head was smashed into a folding chair?

Suggestion: "The fight was decided when Snow lifted Holly onto his shoulders and threw him through a wooden table. Successfully covering and pinning Holly, Snow won the WWF Hardcore Title."

• "The next scheduled match was WWF Intercontinental Champion The Godfather versus Owen Hart in a standard match."

Since Owen Hart performed as the Blue Blazer (even though it is a blatant obvious gimmick), then should it not be "The Godfather versus the Blue Blazer (Owen Hart)", then later sentences would refer to Hart by name instead of his gimmick? After all, the match was carded as "The Godfather versus the Blue Blazer", right?

• "Hart, however, fell to his death during his ring entrance. (For further information, see below)."

I am not in favor of this approach. Do not disrupt the flow. Either give a brief overview of Hart's accident here, or move the "Owen Hart accident" here as a sub-section.

Replace the two sentences with "As Hart descended into the ring on a harness, the equipment gave way, and he fell. Emergency medical technicians (EMTs) rushed him to the hospital but he died. The show was halted for 15 minutes before continuing with the next match." or something.

Reply: Done all, is it good now?--Tru_Co 19:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

• "In storyline after this event, The Rock [...] At SummerSlam, Mankind defeated Austin and Triple H to win the WWF Championship."

I am not certain with the Wrestling projects guidelines but what do all this have to do with Over the Edge? Aside from the Rock's scripted feud with the Undertaker over the Championship, there is nothing relating these subsequent stories to the events and outcomes of Over the Edge.

• Where is the reception of this program (viewship, earnings, criticisms, praises)?
  • Reply: Some feuds culminated as a result of OTE, I reworded some of it to make it seem as such. Also, like it is mentioned in the article, the event was never released on VHS or DVD and encores of the PPV were canceled, so PPV buys were unable to be calculated. Also, because the WWF was ordered to change their name to WWE, all WWF references have been erased and we can't find news article stating the ticket sales, even with the wayback machine. In addition, there is a criticism section, as stated above in the peer review intro. --Tru_Co 19:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• In the reflist, slam.canoe.ca sites are paired with "SLAM! Sports", "Canoe: SLAM! Sports-Wrestling", and "Canadian Online Explorer". Consistency, please.
  • Fixed all.--Tru_Co 19:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Per "All videos are property of their respected owners." at Wrestling Gone Wrong.[1] What makes the reference acceptable to be linked to? The video is linked to and hosted by http://nomercyvideo.com/, who states "We are a group of individuals trained in Pro Wrestling, Martial Arts, and Stunts. We create Viral Content for TV shows and the Internet. We also do stuntwork for various projects." This is made by splicing together recordings of television programs (the "TV 14 OLV" logo is there). Selected sections come from WWE and Biography.com (evident from the watermarks), and they hold the copyrights over their works. As such, these spliced videos are copyviolations (unauthorized broadcasts), and Wikipedia policy is clear that we do not link to them (WP:COPYRIGHT). I have removed it from the article. You can use the Template:cite video template if you wish to reference the episodes in question, but no links to them unless the host is specifically the copyright holder. The cite fields would need the title of the Biography.com and WE episodes at the minimum.
  • Reply: I forgot to remove that one, sorry about that, I was aware of all that, I just missed it somehow.--Tru_Co 19:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• How is Hoffco, Inc a reliable source?
  • Reply: It's marginally reliable because its not verifying controversial information, just the referees, announcers, etc. Which they get from videos of the event that are on the internet.--Tru_Co 19:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the above, getting a copyeditor to smooth the sentence flow would be wise. Jappalang (talk) 08:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Reply: It was copyedited once, but I will seek another one. Thanks.--Tru_Co 19:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Recent changes pretty much addressed most of what I have stated above (if I have any further issue with them, I will come back to them later). The following are further concerns.
  • I would rephrase the "Criticism" subsection as "Reactions" or such. WWF did get support for its actions from certain quarters.
  • Get rid of the "See also" section. FAs are supposed to be comprehensive, and such a section weakens that criteria. It is pointless to link Hart here as he is already linked in the main body.
  • This "when the court order the defendants, the WWF, to give the Hart family, the prosecutors, US$18 million" is inaccurate. The judge did not order WWF to cough up $18mil after a hearing. There was no trial. The Harts and WWF reached an agreement, in which WWF paid $18mil so that the Harts would not proceed with the case ever.
  • There are quite a lot of "noun plus -ing" constructs. Normally, many people would fail to pick this up, but we have certain reviewers who readily pick up this grammatical foible.

Piece of advice: User:Tony1#Featured article candidates and good prose is a good starting point for FAC prose study. Jappalang (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done the first 3 points, but how do I fix the "noun +ing"?--Tru_Co 23:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 has given tips on how to rectify "noun +ing" in his guides. Some copyeditors would also find ways to reduce or eliminate its usage. Jappalang (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]