Talk:Money in the Bank (2011)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Wrestlinglover (talk · contribs) 07:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll be reviewing this shortly. I'll try to make everything clear, concise, and understandable. This will take me a while as I do in-depth reviews. Considering your interest in nominating for FA, this will be a FA review rather than a GA review. With GA I let things pass that aren't that big of a deal, but with FA the situation is different.-- Will C  07:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks WillC for taking this up! Let's get this show on the road! Starship.paint (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK WillC I have made even more changes and cuts. The below pretty messy now. Could we start another section for the review? Starship.paint (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * References

Before I read the article I can check the sources rather quickly. It appears none are dead according to the links on the right. I do find issues with the sources.


 * iTunes ref I will let pass. I have a feeling some at FAC may have an issue with this but who knows.


 * Webcite is like Archive.org, I'll let it pass.


 * Change the How Stuff Works ref, the original is alive. Always use the original reference if it is still alive than the Archived one. Check each from Webcite to see if any of the originals are still alive.
 * Changed it, but why? The archive is for me to show the page as I saw it when originally referenced. What if the link changes when the page is moved, or the information in the link changes? (WWE.com sources are notorious for that) Wouldn't that be an extra bother that I, or someone else has to check whether the information is still there? Starship.paint (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Check each one to see if there are major differences that will affect the overall quality of the source. Determine then which to use, but in most cases the original is much better than the archived version.-- Will C  06:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * PWTorch is good.


 * WrestleView is good, I'm not sure they are needed though, the PWTorch ones exist in plenty.


 * Slam is good. Should be cited as Canadian Online Explorer, the work should be "SLAM! Sports: Wrestling"
 * Done Starship.paint (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The publisher should be Canadian Online Explorer, while the work section should be SLAM! Sports: Wrestling like so: work=SLAM! Sports: Wrestling|publisher=Canadian Online Explorer-- Will C  06:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops. Will redo! Starship.paint (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good


 * Removed all PWInsider, that is a dirtsheet.
 * Like to contest this. PWInsider was added to the list of reliable sources, but it is not for citing news or anything to do with insider / dirtsheet stuff. It's for citing TV/PPV reports (essentially match results / happenings) and I used it to do exactly that (they are only in the Event section). They've been around since 2004 with an established staff so I don't see why they can be considered unreliable when simply reporting on what happened in the match. Starship.paint (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be on the list. Back when I was active we had several discussions about the cite and we continued to find issues with it and it was officially deemed unreliable. Mostly because they tend to get things wrong and we don't know how they determine their information. PWInsider won't pass FA.-- Will C  06:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said, in this context, it's not wrestling rumours or news, it's match events. Did you find that they tended to report match results wrongly? Starship.paint (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * They get information from unreliable sources like fan posts. They get results wrong at times. Once again, PWInsider wouldn't pass FA in my view.


 * WWE refs are obviously good, but don't rely too heavily on them. Third party sources over primary.
 * I didn't add any that wasn't necessary. Refs 36-41 were already in the article. Do you see them as redundant and needing of removal? Starship.paint (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For now they are fine.-- Will C  06:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if I can pass the Internet Wrestling Database. Even in its terms and conditions it says they are not sure of the accuracy of their product. That is up to you to convince me.
 * That again depends on what information is being cited, I used it to cite the star ratings the Wrestling Observer Newsletter gave to the PPV matches. Seeing as they use the Wrestling Observer Newsletter as a direct source for the star ratings, I don't think they have much potential to be inaccurate for this bit of info. Starship.paint (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * They use figure four but the other ones they use don't exactly help to establish its reliability. Check Slam sports and pwtorch or even wrestling observer. I found the 5 star rating for TNA Unbreakable on slam sports in an interview with Christopher Daniels. Better to use sources that can't be argued.-- Will C  06:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I did a search.... Grantland and Baltimore Sun produced red herrings. All I got is UGO and WhatCulture. Slam, Torch, Observer nope. Do you think any of them are applicable? Starship.paint (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * UGO will do. Parent company is IGN. ✅
 * Wait, is this a GA + FA review or just an GA review? By including the UGO source and removing profightdb, all the undercard match ratings will have to be removed. If this is just a GA review, I'd add in the UGO source and leave the profightdb in as well, then when it comes to the FA review and it doesn't pass, then I'll remove the profightdb and the undercard star ratings. Starship.paint (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm doing both. Some things I'm actually letting slide since they will get sorted out if you nominate it for FA. I'm actually harder on things like this but I'm pretty apathetic currently. Just go ahead and remove profight since the main purpose is Meltzer's 5 star rating. The other ratings are just a bonus. PW Torch and Slam sports should be enough-- Will C  11:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The FYE ref has to be removed. If I am correct, during the Turning Point FA I was informed that it is not considered a reliable reference for that material. Release of DVD isn't that important anyway.
 * Amazon reference is the same reason as above. Not sure on the whole fan opinions. This is an encyclopedia. Ratings are good, but random fan opinions not so much. Critics opinions are better than fans.
 * Surely all fan opinions will have to be "random", there's no way of escaping that. As with the DVDtalk you mentioned below, is there such a thing as an unreliable review? Starship.paint (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Check Talk:Hard Justice (2005)/GA1, that is where I found the issues with Amazon, FYE, and other retailers.-- Will C  06:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I gave that a read through - okay, according to that, Amazon is not reliable and I will be removing it. However, your link didn't say anything regarding FYE and DVDtalk, only Amazon. I searched for DVDTalk in the reliable sources discussion, and turned up this discussion which points at DVDTalk being a reliable source. I'll remove FYE because DVDtalk covers that bit of info. Starship.paint (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * DVDTalk will do judging from that discussion.


 * Figure four is a pass
 * About.com is a pass
 * The Sun is a pass
 * IGN is a pass
 * Remove DVDtalk, not reliable
 * Remove blogspot, not reliable.
 * Okay, removed. Starship.paint (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * TMZ I'll approve reluctantly.

This should do for now, until I read the article.-- Will C  07:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Lead and Info box
 * Link event to List of WWE pay-per-view events ✅
 * "presented by Skittles, which took place" → "presented by Skittles that took place" ✅
 * "It was the second annual Money in the Bank pay-per-view, and six professional wrestling matches were scheduled for the event, two of which were the eponymous ladder matches." → "It was the second event under the Money in the Bank name and seventh event in the 2011 WWE PPV schedule. Six professional wrestling matches were featured at the event, two of which were the eponymous ladder match." - More information, flows better. ✅
 * Don't link to main event, it is not needed.
 * How about undercard? Starship.paint (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It too. ✅


 * "During the main event, CM Punk defeated WWE Champion John Cena to win the title; Punk's contract expired that night and Punk left WWE with the WWE Championship. On the undercard, Christian faced Randy Orton for the World Heavyweight Championship and won via disqualification; as per the match stipulation, Christian became the new champion. Also featured were the Raw and SmackDown Money in the Bank ladder matches, which were won by Alberto Del Rio and Daniel Bryan respectively." → "The main event was CM Punk versus John Cena for the WWE Championship, which Punk won to become the new champion. The World Heavyweight Championship was also defended, in which Christian defeated Randy Orton by disqualification; as per the match stipulation, Christian became the new champion. On the undercard WWE held two Money in the Bank ladder matches for the Raw and Smackdown brands. Alberto Del Rio won the Raw match while Daniel Bryan Smackdown match respectively." More professional. The Punk bit is storyline, that is better suited for the main article. If Punk had actually left the company, then sure, that is notable in the lead.
 * I had to do more digging to find out if Punk's leaving was legitimate. It was reported online (as well as played up in storyline) in the days up to MITB that Punk's contract expired on MITB. This was later confirmed by later interviews with Punk. See links ESPN and ChicagoTribune. The interviews also revealed that Punk ultimately signed a contract extension while the PPV was being aired. So his leaving was legitimate all the way until before his match started, then it became storyline. So it's a bit of both, honestly. It will have to go into the article somehow. Starship.paint (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Separately, I don't consider the WHC match as part of the main event. SLAM's review seems to agree with me. I also wish to convey more clearly that Cena was the champion going into the PPV, could you take a look at the new lead? Starship.paint (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Meh, the Punk stuff is best suited to play up in the match. Discuss it in the aftermath section. As for WHC, it is the SmackDown main event so it should be in the main event section. All events only have one main event unless it is a supercard, which this show is. It features several main events technically.-- Will C  11:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Money in the Bank received numerous positive reviews, but critics and fans reserved their highest praise for the main event between John Cena and CM Punk, which received a 5-star rating from Dave Meltzer." - Some of this is original research. We are supposed to let the info speak for itself. Replace this with event ratings rather than the statement. The Slam rating for the event should do. Compare it to the previous year event's rating. The Meltzer rating can stay. When you note it though note it as so "The bout between Cena and Punk for the WWE Championship received a rare 5-star rating from wrestling journalist Dave Meltzer." This way helps show why it needs to be in the lead.
 * I haven't touched any of this yet. Firstly, Slam's review of the previous event has no rating so there's no case for comparision, but The Sun's Rob McNichol does have a previous case for comparision. Another reason is I'm apprehensive about including Slam's rating in the lead, because it's easily the lowest rating (6/10) given that I don't think it would be a fair representative. The Sun's Rob McNichol rated 9.5/10. About.com's Eric Cohen rated the DVD 5 stars out of 5, and stated that his opinion hadn't changed from watching the PPV to the DVD. Sixty percent of the feedback given to the Pro Wrestling Torch website rated the event between 9 to 10/10, and the lowest score given was a single person's 7/10.
 * Even so, if the lowest rating is 6/10, doesn't it mean that the reviews were universally positive? Would that be considered for a mention? Starship.paint (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Include both the Slam review, Meltzer's 5 star rating, and the Sun rating all in the lead in the third paragraph. More than one can be placed in.-- Will C  11:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no ref for the attendance in the info box. ✅
 * Background and concept
 * Move the disclaimer to storylines, it has no purpose here. ✅
 * The background to the match is content forking from the match article. If you really want this section it should be converted to a production section as in it explains when the PPV was announced, where, what date, themes, poster released, and other things related. How the match is contested should be in the event section prior to when the first one is performed. Overall, delete this section based on WP:CFORK.
 * Could you take a look again, so I just delete the whole Background and concept section? So should I rename Production to Storylines? Or Production and Storylines? Starship.paint (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Only delete this section if you do not wish to do an actual production section. I ask that you look at Bound for Glory (2005) for an idea of what I mean by some of my comments in this review. It should help you when making the changes.-- Will C  11:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looked at BFG, but I don't feel like adding that. So removing the section... and renaming whole section to Storylines. Starship.paint (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Storylines
 * The main event should be featured first in this section. ✅
 * The Divas title match background is not notable, remove it. It is two lines that offers really nothing. It will be questioned at FA.
 * I strongly disagree. The Divas match at MITB was not set up out of nowhere last-minute on the PPV. It was advertised and there was a storyline (albeit a very simple one) of a title rematch from an ex-champion. "Feuding with the Bellas since May" provides further background evidence of a storyline. Starship.paint (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is trivia. When you think Money in the Bank does Kelly Kelly vs Bella come to your head first? Second? Third? How about fourth? of all things that happened at this event. It is two lines of something that is not notable to the overall event other than that it was filler. The Storylines should focus on the main point, not every little detail. It is more of a trivia thing than something that was built to get more buys. Best suited for the bio articles than this event.-- Will C  12:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's plain that the Divas match is the least important match on the event, but I still disagree that it is trivia. You say the "Storylines should focus on the main point, not every little detail." Now that would be relevant if I wrote the Divas storylines to the length of the those of the other matches', but it isn't long at all. I fear that if I remove this totally, of course there won't be a disclaimer to say "this match was insignificant, we're not going to provide you the storylines" so the reader will wonder, hey, what about that Divas match? Did they miss out on the storylines and background? Or they might think, there were no storylines or background, which is not true. I can trim it to just the first sentence and possibly merge with another paragraph, but I am against removing both sentences totally. Upon further consideration, I'm going to remove the second sentence. Starship.paint (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You've yet to explain what the Raw brand or Smackdown brands are. Make it simple. Add it in with the disclaimer, saying the storylines are produced on WWE's Raw and Smackdown television shows, known as brands, etc etc. Someone unfamiliar will be confused otherwise.
 * Added a further disclaimer. Starship.paint (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "on the June 27 Raw" → "on the June 27 episode of Raw." - Do this for all instances. The other way makes no sense for some. This comes from the tv project if I recall correctly. That is the way episodes are supposed to be referred too.
 * I see alot of this info is better suited elsewhere. The feuds heading into the Money in the bank match are minor storylines that do not affect the actual match. That is hype to get people to buy the show, not actual production to the show. Short and simple. Tell when the matches were announced and who were announced to be involved in each. Currently this paragraph on the matches has nothing to do with the matches but the feuds between participants. It is not focused on the matter at hand.
 * I'm not so sure about this. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be advocating regarding the MITB matches that beyond the announcement, the other feuds are irrelevant? Yet previous Featured Articles seem to have made it with this "extra" information, see December to Dismember (2006), the Background of the Elimination Chamber match, the info from "Van Dam continued his momentum ..." to "... causing the disqualification" seems similar to what I wrote. Similarly for No Way Out (2004), "The rivalry continued to develop the following week, when Angle..." and "The following week on SmackDown!, Mysterio was accompanied by Jorge Páez, a professional boxer and childhood friend of Mysterio who was featured in his "Crossing Borders" music video" Starship.paint (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The Henry/Show paragraph reads more like an advertisement than a encyclopedia article. Take out all of the fluff. "Big Show and Mark Henry's feud started on the June 17 SmackDown, when an emotional Show (tormented by Alberto Del Rio and Ricardo Rodriguez running him over with a car) was forced to face Henry in a match. Show ended up brutally attacking and knocking out Henry before the match could even begin.[19] This ignited a destructive streak in Henry, who continually carried out vicious assaults on Show, costing Show his matches against Del Rio at Capitol Punishment and also on Rawin a cage match, so a match was set up between the two heavyweights at Money in the Bank." → "Big Show and Mark Henry's feud started on the June 17 episode of SmackDown, when Big Show was forced to face Henry in a match. Show ended up knocking out Henry before the bout could begin. This created a rivalry between the two with Henry interfering in Big Show's match with Alberto Del Rio at Capitol Punishment and on the ?? episode of Raw in a cage match. Henry versus Big Show was later advertised for Money in the Bank." The point of these articles are to be straight-forward and encyclopedic. This match description should be the last one in the section.
 * ✅ Starship.paint (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Christian and Randy Orton had been feuding over the World Heavyweight Champion since Orton defeated Christian to win the title on the May 6 SmackDown less than a week after Christian had won the title.[20] At Capitol Punishment, Orton defeated Christian to retain his title despite Christian being illegally pinned while his foot was under the ropes, leading to Christian demanding another title shot on the next SmackDown. Christian was promised another title shot if he could defeat Kane, but lost via disqualification when a rampaging Mark Henry attacked Kane. SmackDown General Manager Theodore Long thus made a tag team match between Christian and Henry versus Kane and Orton with a similar stipulation, and Henry pinned Orton.[21] Long later offered Henry a shot at Orton's title if he could defeat Orton again, but Christian distracted Henry with Big Show's music to cost him the title shot, ensuring that only Christian would face Orton at Money in the Bank.[11] While Christian's lawyers helped add a new stipulation for the title match, that Christian would win the championship upon Orton's disqualification or if there was poor officiating,[22]Christian repeatedly taunted Orton by insulting his father Bob Orton, Jr., vandalizing Orton's personal bus and stealing Orton's wallet." → "The World Heavyweight Championship was defended at Money in the Bank by Randy Orton against Christian. This rivalry started on the May 6 episode of SmackDown when Orton defeated Christian to become champion. At Capitol Punishment, Orton defeated Christian to retain the title despite Christian being illegally pinned. On the ?? episode of SmackDown, Christian demanded another title from SmackDown General Manager Theodore Long, which he was granted but only if he could defeat Kane. Christian lost the match against Kane by disqualification after interference from Mark Henry on the ?? episode of Smackdown. Long then made a tag team match pitting the team of Christian and Henry against Kane and Orton with a similar stipulation; Henry pinned Orton. Afterwards, Long offered Henry a shot at the title but only if Henry could defeat Orton again. Henry lost the encounter after a distraction by Christian. This set-up Orton versus Christian for the title at Money in the Bank. A new stipulation was added to the match on the ?? episode of Smackdown by Christian's lawyers in the storyline. The stipulation declared that if Orton was disqualified, he would lose the title to Christian."
 * Implemented with some changes. Starship.paint (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Cena confronted McMahon and threatened to walk out on him and return the WWE Championship if Punk was not reinstated with his title shot." - Return the WWE Championship? I'm confused here. Are you sure that is what he said?
 * 1) Cena confronts McMahon, asks for Punk to be reinstated, McMahon refused. 2) Cena actually handed the championship back to McMahon and walked off. 3) McMahon calls Cena to stop, says Punk is reinstated, returns Cena the belt Starship.paint (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "On the next Raw, a desperate McMahon attempted to sign Punk to a new contract to ensure that the WWE Championship would stay in WWE, even agreeing to Punk's outrageous demands and apologising to Punk, but Cena interrupted the proceedings. When Punk stated that Cena was no longer the underdog and instead had become what he hated, a dominant "dynasty", Cena punched Punk. Punk then ripped up the contract that would have kept him in WWE and reiterated that he would win the WWE Championship at Money in the Bank and "go be the best in the world somewhere else"." → "On the following episode of Raw, McMahon attempted to sign Punk to a new contract to ensure that the WWE Championship would stay in WWE, even agreeing to Punk's outrageous demands and apologizing (misspelled) to Punk before Cena interrupted the proceedings. The segment eventually resulted in Cena punching Punk, causing Punk to rip up the agreed contract." ✅
 * Preliminary matches
 * Per WP:OVERLINK go back and remove links in this section to articles that are already linked in the previous Production section overall.
 * You don't have to have 5 references for every match description. One reference per description will do.
 * Add the match times to each encounter.
 * Anyone who accompanies another wrestler to the match should be noted in the match description.
 * SmackDown should already have been linked and explained by this point.
 * Money in the Bank ladder match should have already been linked as well.
 * All of these moves need to be explained. To someone unfamiliar with the topic will get lost really quick. Some will actually think Kane attacked anyone with a clothesline.
 * Cut the description down. This is meant to be a summary, this is close to play by play content. Tell the even began with this match and who was involved as up to this point you haven't exactly given a straight list. Tell how long the match lasted. Tell one big spot in the match or go straight to the end. The crowd reaction is not needed, they make noise at everything. Cut out all of the other info, it is trivia. Go straight to the end with "Near the end, Bryan and Barrett were fighting on a ladder. Barrett tried to throw Bryan off the ladder and onto another ladder. Bryan countered with repeated elbows shots to Barrett's head before kicking Barrett in the head, causing him to fall off. Bryan followed by unhooking the briefcase to win the contest."
 * Cut "Kelly seized the early advantage by diving from the apron onto both Bella Twins at ringside. Kelly then performed a handstand headscissors hold on Brie while using the ropes, but Brie countered by pushing Kelly from the apron to the floor face-first."
 * "Kelly then mounted a comeback and hit the K2, for the pinfall victory." → "Kelly won the bout after slamming Brie's face into the mat with her K2 maneuver." - This gives an idea on what the hell is happening.
 * Finishing move is wrestling jargon. That is a no no per WP:Jargon.
 * I don't disagree that it is jargon, but I think it's a significant enough jargon in terms of professional wrestling... when you have "pinfall" and "two-count" and "second rope" already. Starship.paint (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Both big men were taken off their feet by Show's jumping shoulder tackle. Henry then took control by targeting Show's legs." - Remove
 * "Show fought back with a diving shoulder tackle from the second rope and attempted to deliver a chokeslam, but Henry countered by hitting his finishing move, the World's Strongest Slam. Yet, Show kicked out of the pinattempt at two. Henry then delivered another World's Strongest Slam and two running splashes for the pinfall victory. After the match, Henry injured Show by wrapping a chair around Show's ankle and crushing it with a corner slingshot splash from the second rope." → "Henry gained a two-count after slamming Big Show back-first against the mat with his World's Strongest Slam maneuver. Henry then perform the World's Strongest Slam again and two running splashes for the pinfall victory. After the match, Henry injured Show in the storyline by wrapping a chair around Show's ankle and crushing it with a corner splash from the second rope."
 * Kelly and Henry's matches have been updated. Starship.paint (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Raw should have already been linked by this point and explained.
 * "Bourne and Miz then went for the briefcase, but Del Rio toppled their ladder, causing Miz to injure his knee upon landing. Miz was brought backstage due to his injury." → "Early on Bourne and Miz were standing on a ladder fighting over the briefcase while Del Rio toppled their ladder, causing Miz to injure his knee upon landing. Miz was brought backstage due to his injury, but later returned to finish the match."
 * "As Mysterio and Del Rio battled on top of the ladders for the briefcase, Del Rio distracted the luchador by unmasking him, then pushed him onto another ladder, which tipped over and sent both wrestlers to the mat. However, Del Rio was able to regroup and unhook the briefcase to win the match" → "While Mysterio and Del Rio battled on top a the ladder for the briefcase, Del Rio pulled off Mysterio's mask and then pushed Mysterio onto another ladder, causing his ladder to tip over. Del Rio was able to regroup and unhook the briefcase to win the match."
 * Remove the rest of the info in the Raw Money in the Bank, it is not notable to overall event.
 * Remove "Orton grabbed the advantage from the start, dodging Christian's attempt at a plancha and throwing him into the metal ring steps. Christian took control after dropping Orton's back across the top rope, and later hit a spinebuster. Both Christian and Orton dodged each other's attempts at hitting the RKO and KillSwitch. Orton countered Christian's high-flying offense, but Christian blocked Orton's attempt at a superplex and hit a diving headbutt. Orton's third RKO attempt was successfully countered into Christian's KillSwitch but Orton kicked out of the pin at two. Christian then tried for the Spear but Orton's leapfrog resulted into Christian going shoulder-first into the ring post. Orton followed with a gutwrench elevated neck breaker for a two count. Christian avoided Orton's attempt at the punt but Orton with a snap scoop powerslam followed by his rope hung DDT."
 * "In the show's fifth match, Randy Orton defended his World Heavyweight Championship against Christian, with the stipulation that if Orton was disqualified or if there was poor officiating, Christian would win the title." → "Randy Orton defended the World Heavyweight Championship against Christian next, with the stipulation that if Orton was disqualified or if there was poor officiating, Christian would win the title."
 * "Orton set for the RKO again but Christian backed into the corner and spit in the Orton's face. An enraged Orton kicked Christian in the groin and was disqualified, therefore crowning Christian as the new champion. A still seething Orton attacked Christian after the match with two RKOs on the announce table." → "Christian won the match when Orton kicked him in the groin after he spit in Orton's face. As per the stipulation, Christian won the match and the title due to Orton's disqualification. Afterwards, Orton attacked Christian by slamming Christian face-first into the announce table two times with his RKO maneuver."
 * I didn't remove everything from the two MITB matches and WHC match, but I did trim them down. Starship.paint (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Main event match
 * Way way way way too much in the main event match section. Cut it way way down. A play by play is not needed. This needs to be just know as the main event. The duration. one or two near falls. Then the finish angle no emotion. As per WP:IN-U, this should not be in the WWE universe at all. No emotions just bare facts of what happened and what it led too.
 * Main event still needs to be cut down alot. WHC needs to be moved to this section since the event was a supercard.-- Will C  07:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Results
 * Move to below Aftermath, it is quick reference, should be outside of the main article. ✅
 * Links are wrong with Vladimir Kozlov, Michael McGillicutty, Tag team match.
 * Is the tag team link correct now? Starship.paint (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is right.-- Will C  11:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Tables are exceptions to the overlinking rule. Everything should be linked that needs to be linked. Singles match and disqualification should be linked throughout.
 * Reception
 * "During the pay-per-view, WWE announced that 14,815 people attended Money in the Bank" → "WWE announced that the attendance was 14,815 during the show." ✅
 * "which was up 18.2% from 165,000 buys the previous year." → "which was up 18.2% from 165,000 buys the previous event had drew." ✅
 * "Judging from the feedback given to the Wrestling Observer and Pro Wrestling Torch websites, fans were unanimous in their praise of Money in the Bank and there was not a single negative review." - Original Research, remove.
 * Overlinking again.
 * "Judging from the feedback given to the Wrestling Observer and Pro Wrestling Torch websites, fans were unanimous in their praise of Money in the Bank and there was not a single negative review. A large majority of fans agreed that the John Cena-CM Punk match was the best, while the Divas match was the worst. Most fans enjoyed the two Money in the Bank ladder matches and rated the SmackDown version as the better one; Alberto Del Rio's win was seen as expected while Daniel Bryan's win was praised as a satisfying surprise. The Big Show-Mark Henry match was generally described as "fine for what it was", while there was a mixed reaction to the finish of the Randy Orton-Christian match. Sixty percent of the feedback given to the Pro Wrestling Torch website rated the event between 9 to 10 stars out of 10." - Remove as WP:Fancruft also encyclopedic as you aren't gonna open up Britannica and find a review from Joe about King Lear.
 * I cut the match reviews, but I'm hesitant on totally leaving out the fan reaction, so I merged the rest with the next paragraph and rephrased to hopefully cure the original research problem. Could you take a second look? Starship.paint (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep the PWTorch poll, that works for me. The rest is pointless.


 * main-event is two words: main event. ✅
 * "Alex Roberts of Pro Wrestling Torch" → "Alex Roberts of the Wrestling Torch Newsletter" ✅
 * "Money in the Bank was ranked the second best" - Remove "was" ✅
 * "with the Cena-Punk match from Money in the Bank being ranked fourth best" - Remove "best" ✅
 * Aftermath
 * "The next day, with Punk attending a Chicago Cubs baseball game with the WWE Championship" - Makes no sense and is random, connect it to other information.
 * "However, Triple H interrupted McMahon with an announcement of his own, that the WWE board of directors had given McMahon a vote of no confidence, and that Triple H was to relieve McMahon of his duties and take over the day-to-day operations of WWE, effectively firing McMahon instead. Triple H then refused to fire Cena" → "However, Triple H interrupted and announced that the WWE Board of Directors had removed McMahon from power due to a vote of no confidence. Triple H then proclaimed that he was relieving McMahon of his duties and taking over the day-to-day operations of WWE. Cena was not fired as a result of these actions."
 * Seems to have repetition "removed McMahon from power" and "relieving McMahon of his duties", also I don't think it's clear enough that Triple H refused to fire Cena. Edited. Starship.paint (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Work with it, none of my comments are set in stone. These are just to give an idea or path for you to work with.
 * Already changed. Starship.paint (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "at an AAW (an indy promotion)" → "at a show hosted by the independent All American Wrestling promotion ✅
 * ", although guest referee Triple H missed Cena having his foot on the ropes while Punk scored the pinfall." - Remove, led to nothing. ✅
 * "Kevin Nash made his return and powerbombed Punk." → "Kevin Nash made his WWE return and assaulted Punk." ✅
 * "As Triple H watched, Del Rio cashed in his Money in the Bank contract and one enzuigiri kick to Punk's head resulted in a new champion." → "Del Rio then cashed in his Money in the Bank contract and pinned Punk to become the new champion." ✅
 * "Just over three months later, Punk regained the WWE Championship at Survivor Series, starting a reign that lasted 434 days." → "Punk later regained the WWE Championship at Survivor Series by defeating Del Rio."
 * Isn't the 434 days reign pretty significant? Starship.paint (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Notable to his career and to the title, to this event not so much. This is due to him not having won the title at this event. Survivor Series it would be notable. ✅


 * "Meanwhile, Mark Henry went on to crush Kane's and Vladimir Kozlov's ankles with steel chairs in the storyline. He then defeated Orton at Night of Champions to become World Heavyweight Champion for the first time. Big Show returned from injury in October 2011 to feud with Henry over his title. Daniel Bryan initially declared that he would only cash in his Money in the Bank contract at WrestleMania XXVIII until the November 25 episode of SmackDown. There, Bryan cashed in the briefcase after Henry had been knocked out by Show to become the World Heavyweight Champion. However, the match was voided by General Manager Theodore Long as Henry was not medically cleared to compete with the briefcase being returned to Bryan. At WWE's TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs PPV, Henry lost the World Heavyweight Championship to Big Show. After the match, Henry assaulted Big Show which allowed Bryan to cash in his contract and pin Big Show to win the title."
 * I still think Bryan defending the WHC at Mania, his initial intention, is relevant if you look at it long-term. Starship.paint (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Same comment as with Punk reign above.
 * Unlike Punk's reign above, Bryan did win the MITB briefcase at MITB, and his initial intention was to cash in at Mania. Starship.paint (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Remove the other stuff about John, Mistico, and Kelly Kelly.
 * Killed Sin Cara. Kelly and Ace I will discuss later. Starship.paint (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Kelly Kelly's match was filler and not that significant to the event. I even forgot she had a match here. John's stuff happened after the event, it is better suited for his bio and for events after this. I may relent on this though.-- Will C  11:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, her match was filler, but the title was still defended at the event. For the other two belts defended at the event, I did mention when the champion lost their belts which they won at this event. So I think showing when Kelly lost her belt is continuity. Starship.paint (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For Johnny Ace, he was reintroduced in June (after the previous PPV) due to the CM Punk leaving storyline when Punk brought him up in the worked shoot promo. I'm not sure whether he appeared on Raw in June / July before MITB, but MITB definitely played a big part in his "re-debut" on WWE TV in a significant storyline. After MITB he continued to play a significant role as the Raw (and later also SmackDown) GM, and he eventually feuded with both wrestlers who were in the main event of MITB. Without the CM Punk leaving storyline, Ace couldn't "debut" this way. Starship.paint (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * See also
 * Add WWE Money in the Bank and Money in the Bank ladder match here✅
 * References
 * I'll check this again later.
 * External links
 * Add WWE.com here. Just call it WWE.com.
 * I saw your change to the article. I meant to add the website WWE and keep the one in existence the way it was. You'll have two external links then. Sorry I wasn't clear.
 * Is it correct now? Starship.paint (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good.


 * Photos
 * Too many pictures. One picture per section please. One in the production section, one for the undercard, one for the main event, one for aftermath, and possibly one for reception. Pictures are screwing up the sections. Punk celebrating needs a new description. No mention of his hometown crowd stuff. Just saw he is celebrating after his win. All licenses are fine.
 * eh... removed two pictures for now. Kelly Kelly will probably be replaced by someone else though. Starship.paint (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * We have a long way to go before it is GA yet. We'll get there though, hopefully.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * We have a long way to go before it is GA yet. We'll get there though, hopefully.
 * We have a long way to go before it is GA yet. We'll get there though, hopefully.

Restart

 * Lead and box
 * "Six professional wrestling matches were featured for the event" → "Six professional wrestling matches were featured at the event" ✅
 * "The main event featured John Cena defending his WWE Championship" → "The main event featured John Cena defending the WWE Championship" ✅
 * "On the undercard, the World Heavyweight Championship was also defended," → "The World Heavyweight Championship was also defended on the card," - The World Heavyweight Championship match was not an undercard match, it was the Smackdown main event. ✅
 * "Christian became the new champion; WWE also held two Money in the Bank ladder matches for the Raw and SmackDown brands. Alberto Del Rio won the Raw match while Daniel Bryan won the SmackDown match respectively." → "Christian became the new champion. WWE held two Money in the Bank ladder matches for the Raw and SmackDown brands. Alberto Del Rio won the Raw match while Daniel Bryan won the SmackDown match respectively." ✅
 * Storylines
 * "fan favourites or villains" → "heroes or villains"
 * I must say, I'd rather change to faces and heels. in two recent WT:PW discussions within the past year here and here not a single person has opposed the face / heel terminology, mainly because 1) it is integral to professional wrestling 2) heroes and villains don't really match it well enough. 3) we don't explain pinfall, kick out, or ring apron, announce table... or Money in the Bank ladder match.  starship.paint  (talk &#124; cntrb) 08:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussions at WT:PW does not overrule WP:JARGON. Can't use jargon unless it is explained. It is common knowledge to extreme wrestling fans but my dad has been watching since AWA and still doesn't know what heel and face mean. To use it, it would have to be explained thus heroes and villains. About 16 discussions were held before those since 2008 and each time resulted the same: policy dictates what we do.-- Will C  20:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC) ✅


 * "The storylines were produced on WWE's Raw and SmackDown television shows, with the Raw and SmackDown brands operating as scripted independent branches of WWE" → "The storylines were produced on WWE's Raw and SmackDown television shows, with the Raw and SmackDown brands – storyline divisions in which WWE assigned its employees to different programs." ✅
 * "triple threat Falls Count Anywhere match" → "Triple Threat Falls Count Anywhere match" ✅
 * "with the result of Henry pinning Orton" → "Henry pinned Orton in the bout" ✅
 * "June 27 Raw" - "June 27 episode of Raw" ✅
 * The Money in the Bank Ladder match only needs the competitors recorded. The on-going feuds in the match are not important to this event but to the bio articles and other events. This match was about the Money in the Bank contract alone, the rest was filler in order to hype tensions for the match. Remove the excess material and only record who is in each match because it is not clear by the way this is written who is taking part in the encounter. No one knows who is in which until the results section. ✅
 * Remove the Divas title match background. One line does not justify notability under the guidelines.
 * I still disagree. If not one line, then two lines? Because it was originally two lines before a cut. If it's visually ugly, I combined it with the Henry-Show storylines.  starship.paint  (talk &#124; cntrb) 08:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Two lines do not justify notability. It isn't just me, there are several editors who would say this isn't notable enough. It is two lines for a 5 minute match that did nothing. I ask, how is it notable? Because it happened at the event? Not really. Go see Lockdown (2008)'s GA nominations and you'll see me argue the same point and I was overruled by more than one editor.-- Will C  20:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've read the GA review, where 4u1e had a problem with the length of the background section with "what moves were used by whom to win their matches". DMN apparently had issues with the length as well? I guess you meant the FA review, but the same issue apparently persisted, that the background was too long and thus the three editors wanted to cut off the least notable feud. However, the reviews were five years ago, and it's not really the exact same situation here. I'm not sure if editors today think the same way. How about this, I leave it there now, when it comes to the FA nomination and discussion, if other editors bring up that they feel that the two sentences should be removed, I'll remove it.  starship.paint  (talk &#124; contribs) 12:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Remove picture of Cena, it is harming the outline of the article by pushing the text around too much. The pictures from the event are more significant.
 * I am getting even more pictures of the event, actually. The flickr uploader just replied to me two days ago via email (from November...) about changing the licenses of the pictures. The Cena picture will probably replaced with one of a landscape aligned picture. Starship.paint (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed picture of Cena. The current picture in the section will probably be replaced.  starship.paint  (talk &#124; cntrb) 08:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Preliminary matches
 * First things first, the overlinking problem has not been fixed. See WP:OVERLINK. This is left from the last review and I am noticing several things that were not fixed from the last review.
 * This still isn't fixed.-- Will C  20:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I fixed some before, and I hope I've cleaned up all the rest now.  starship.paint  (talk &#124; contribs) 12:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "High spot is jargon, see WP:JARGON. ✅
 * 5 sources per line is not needed. Only one source is needed per area. See Bound for Glory (2005) or TNA Unbreakable which both passed GA recently to see how to cite.
 * I use more sources because sometimes one source misses a move or an event. It's only 4 now.  starship.paint  (talk &#124; cntrb) 09:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason I bring this up is take the WrestleView source. It is at "j" now. It has been cited that many times. If I recall, there is supposed to be some policy that says that a source is supposed to not be over-extended. Has something to do with showing that the article isn't notable enough if a single source has to be used that many times. The material has been cut down. The sources should be able to cover everything mentioned now.
 * It's because I put a WrestleView source after every match in the show. Is there I could put the references at the front of the Prelim matches and Main event matches, before the text?  starship.paint  (talk &#124; contribs) 12:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind, your fears should be assuaged now. Since the content of the matches were cut, not all the sources were required for each match. The four sources are at "c" to "e" now.  starship.paint  (talk &#124; contribs) 12:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Another issue is that the wrestling maneuvers do not explain what is going on. "Sheamus powerbombed Cara through a ladder" What happened? To a unfamiliar reader, this isn't clear. Give an idea what is happening. You can keep the term but give an idea. As such "During the bout, Sheamus slammed Cara through a ladder propped up between the ring apron and the announce table with a powerbomb. The ladder was bent in half as a result, with a convulsing Cara being stretchered away from ringside afterwards.[4] Near the end of the match, Barrett, Rhodes and Bryan were the only three men in the ring. Bryan put Rhodes in a guillotine choke submission hold on top of the ladder in the middle of the ring while Barrett sneaked up the other side of the ladder. After Bryan knocked Rhodes off the ladder, Barrett got Bryan onto his shoulders but Bryan countered with repeated elbows strikes to Barrett's head. Bryan then kicked Barrett in the head and unhooked the briefcase to win the contest." - One it avoids some jargon and explains others so they can be kept. It goes straight to the point. Good job at cutting here. ✅
 * "crushing it with a corner slingshot splash from the second rope."[4][25][26][27][29]" → "crushing it jumping on it from the second rope.[26]" - Even I was confused here and I saw the move done. ✅
 * "In the high spot of the match, Evan Bourne climbed a ladder set up at ringside and performed Air Bourne" → "During the encounter, Evan Bourne climbed a ladder set up at ringside and performed his signature Air Bourne aerial maneuver" ✅
 * Knee is common, does not need to be linked. ✅
 * "With nobody left in the ring, Miz hopped down to the ring and climbed the ladder with one leg, but Mysterio took him out with a sunset flip powerbomb off the ladder. As Mysterio and Del Rio battled on top of the ladders for the briefcase, Del Rio distracted the luchador by unmasking him and then pushing him onto another ladder, which tipped over and sent both wrestlers to the mat. However, Del Rio was able to regroup and unhook the briefcase to win the match.[4][25][26][27][29]" → "With nobody left in the ring, Miz hopped down and climbed a ladder with one leg, but Mysterio stopped him by pulling him off and slamming him to the mat with a sunset flip powerbomb. As Mysterio and Del Rio battled on top of the ladders for the briefcase, Del Rio distracted Mysterio by unmasking him and then pushing him onto another ladder, which tipped over and sent both wrestlers to the mat. However, Del Rio was able to regroup and unhook the briefcase to win the match.[29]" ✅
 * "Later in the match, Christian countered Orton's RKO attempt into a KillSwitch but Orton kicked out of the pin at two. Christian then tried for the spear but Orton dodged it." - Remove, trivia. The main point was the disqualification. This added nothing to the main point. Interesting to a fan, but not encyclopedic.
 * I disagree. After Orton initially resisted the steel chair, Christian would not need to resort to spitting if he could pin Orton with his own finishers. Hitting Orton with the KillSwitch, Orton kicks out at two and missing the spear, necessitates his cowardly actions. I see it as part of the story. However, since Christian didn't actually hit the spear, he might not have won with it. So I removed the spear part, but left the KillSwitch in and elaborated. Starship.paint (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You pretty much just proved my point by one it being there because of the section was written as part of the fictional idea behind the match, and as such it was interesting, thus trivia to the fan. Take yourself out of it. You are reading the section and there is a random line about the Unprettier that gave no information as to why that is there. But for the sake of compromise, I'll let this one pass because it was a near-fall.-- Will C  20:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "When Orton set for the RKO again, Christian spit in Orton's face. An enraged Orton kicked Christian in the groin and was disqualified, therefore crowning Christian as the new champion. Afterwards, Orton attacked Christian by slamming Christian face-first into the announce table two times with his RKO maneuver." → "Later in the bout while Orton was preparing to perform his signature RKO maneuver, Christian countered by spitting in his face. An enraged Orton kicked Christian in the groin and was disqualified, therefore crowning Christian as the new champion. Afterwards, Orton attacked Christian by slamming Christian face-first into the announce table two times with his RKO maneuver" ✅
 * Move the World Heavyweight Championship match to the main event section and re-title it "Main event matches" ✅
 * Position the picture in this section up one paragraph so it isn't cutting into the next section. ✅
 * Main event match
 * "While Punk played to the crowd during his entrance, Cena's entrance was more understated with Cena opting not to do his customary salute to the crowd." - Remove, trivia. The crowd response I reluctantly say is noteworthy, mainly because it led to the 5 star match rating by Meltzer and other reception praise. How they entered is not important. All wrestlers do these things so it is more trivia. ✅
 * "The match saw Punk's surviving two of Cena's signature Attitude Adjustments." → "The bout saw Punk kicking out of two of Cena's signature Attitude Adjustment maneuvers."
 * I changed it, but as above regarding the jargon, I don't see how "kicking out" here would make much sense to the uninformed reader. Kicking out of an AA as a counter? After a pin?  starship.paint  (talk &#124; cntrb) 09:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've used it and never had any complaints from the uninformed readers. It was agreed that it is common knowledge that in wrestling there are pinfalls and submissions. Kicking out of a pin attempt. For the sake of avoiding jargon, if you have a better term then present it.-- Will C  20:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Punk scored with a Go to Sleep which hit Cena's ribs, causing Cena to fall out of the ring." → "Punk performed his Go to Sleep maneuver, hitting Cena's ribs and causing Cena to fall out of the ring." ✅
 * "Punk and McMahon stared each other down, and when Punk finally entered the ring, Cena caught him in his signature STF submission hold." → "Punk then entered the ring where Cena placed Punk in his signature STF submission hold." ✅
 * "Punk immediately hit a second Go to Sleep and pinned Cena to win the WWE Championship." → "Punk immediately hit Cena in the face with the Go to Sleep and pinned him to win the WWE Championship." ✅
 * "As Del Rio was attempting to cash in, Punk took him out with a roundhouse kick to the head and, giving McMahon a flying kiss, fled the arena through the crowd and left as WWE Champion. The show ended with a shot of a shocked and distraught McMahon." → "When Del Rio attempted to cash-in his contract, Punk kicked him in the head and then fled the arena through the crowd and left as WWE Champion."
 * Reworded, but with the flying kiss in. It's very symbolic.  starship.paint  (talk &#124; cntrb) 09:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see the point.-- Will C  20:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Move the picture up one paragraph so it isn't cutting into the next section. ✅
 * Reception
 * "Fans who gave feedback to the Wrestling Observer and Pro Wrestling Torch websites were overwhelmingly positive,[34][35][36][37][38] while Money in the Bank also earned a slew of positive reviews from various critics." - Remove. Fan opinions are not notable in an encyclopedia. Polls and other response that results in statistics is fine. PWTorch and Slam both use polls, those would be fine. However, random opinions do not give a consensus on the overall fan response considering the way the research is done has a flaw to begin with. (I study statistics, research models is kind of my thing.)
 * I'm leaving it there while I find polls, will remove later. PWTorch had polls on the event, but they were deleted. Where does Slam offer polls?  starship.paint  (talk &#124; cntrb) 08:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Slam usually has a poll within the review of the event these days.-- Will C  20:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right, there was a poll in the Slam review I missed. Silly me. I added that to the Slam review, so I removed the Torch and Observer feedback. Also removed the Observer star ratings due to addition of Keller's ratings.  starship.paint  (talk &#124; contribs) 12:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Link "Wrestling Observer Newsletter" at its first instance, not second. ✅
 * "Alex Roberts of the Professional Wrestling Torch Newsletter, who attended the event live in-person, criticized" → "Alex Roberts of the Professional Wrestling Torch Newsletter attended the event. He criticized" ✅
 * If you are gonna mentioned Keller and Caldwell, you might as well expand on their views as one line for one match doesn't really show reception. Moreso it lends biased to the article and doesn't show neutrality.
 * Expanded on Keller, removed Caldwell due to length issues.  starship.paint  (talk &#124; contribs) 12:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good-- Will C  20:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Canadian Online Explorer is a website, doesn't have to be italicized. However, Pro Wrestling Torch Newsletter does. ✅
 * "pro-Christian, who was supposed to be playing the heel" → "pro-Christian, who was supposed to be playing the villain" - Not inside of a quote so avoid the jargon.
 * It's inside a quote now, because that is the exact quote from the article.  starship.paint  (talk &#124; cntrb) 08:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good


 * "WWE also released of "the" - Remove of ✅
 * Overlinking again.
 * Aftermath
 * More overlinking. ✅
 * "and the two WWE Champions had a staredown" - Remove. Point was he returned. This is trivia and doesn't add anything.
 * changed to "return ... to confront Cena" Starship.paint (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay-- Will C  20:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Punk victorious" - "Punk coming out victorious" ✅
 * "Kane's" → "Kane" - The possession comes after both mean are mentioned. ✅
 * "However, the match was voided by General Manager" → "The match was voided by General Manager" ✅
 * "where he lost it in eighteen seconds to Sheamus" → "where he lost it to Sheamus" ✅
 * "Money in the Bank; in October 2011," → "Money in the Bank. In October 2011," ✅
 * "until he was "fired" in June 2012" → "until he was fired in June 2012 in the storyline" ✅
 * Results
 * Tables are exceptions to overlinking. I mentioned this before. Link everything. Remove the spacer in here as well. It looks like ✅
 * See also
 * Fine
 * References
 * Fine
 * External links
 * Fine
 * Comments
 * Still some issues but I understand what it is like to be a new writer to the project. It takes time to get used to the way things are done. I hated the adjustment but then logic takes over and it makes sense. To show this, here is the first draft of the first article I ever wrote. This is Lockdown 2008 after my first draft. It is utterly horrible. But, here it is now. With time we all get better.-- Will C  09:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm passing this. Good job on the work.-- Will C  14:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much WillC. This required a lot of reading and correcting on your part as well.  starship.paint  (talk &#124; contribs) 09:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)