# Talk:Money Inc.

Article too short? I think this article is way too short, should be deleted

This page was far too short for such a great team. I added a history.

The team's full name was Money Incorporated and that's what they were called most of the time back in 1992-1993. That should be the article's name, with Money Inc, Money Inc., Money, Inc, and Money, Inc. as redirects.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.218.242 (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 


### Article name
I was wondering about the WP:COMMONNAME for this article: should it be Money Inc. or Money Incorporated. As I start the Good Article review, please start a discussion at WikiProject Professional wrestling to determine consensus for the article's name. It has been the subject of some reverts on the article. Royalbroil 12:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That discussion has already been had. The page was moved without consensus and moved back with consensus. While the full name is Money Incorporated, they were most commonly known as Money Inc. Money Incorporated has 512 Google hits. Money Inc has 19,700 hits. Nikki311 15:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you please wikilink to the discussion? I looked through several pages of archives for the WikiProject and didn't find it. Royalbroil 20:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It can be found here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


### GA Criteria
Reviewed against the GA criteria by Royalbroil
1) It is well written. In this respect: 
(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and 
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

 Royalbroil 02:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
2) It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it: 
(a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; 
(b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and 
(c) contains no original research. 

 Royalbroil 04:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
3) It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it: 
(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and 
(b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style). 

 Royalbroil 04:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
4) It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. 

 Royalbroil 04:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
5) It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold. 

 Only point could be the name of the article, but consensus at WikiProject Professional wrestling supports the name Money Inc. Royalbroil 02:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
6) It is illustrated, where possible, by images. In this respect: 
(a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and 
(b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.

 Only image is on topic, contains fair use rationale, and is appropriately small size (for a fair use image). Royalbroil 21:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


### Specific comments
"Money Inc. was a heel professional wrestling tag team in the World Wrestling Federation from February 1992 to August 1993 which consisted of the "Million Dollar Man" Ted DiBiase and Irwin R. Schyster (I.R.S.)." It seems like 2 thoughts to me. I think it reads better if it's broken into 2 sentences after the word 1993.
"The Steiner Brothers for the belts" A non-wrestling fan won't know that the belt signifies the champion. How about "...championship belts", although it's weak to have the word championship twice in the sentence. I hope that you can find a better wording than my suggestion.
"Natural Disasters finally defeated Money Inc". Finally is POV.
The Nasty Boys is wikilinked on the second instance, it should be on the first.
"the Million Dollar Dream". It would be clearer to the non-fan if you added the word "hold" after "Dream".
"At the end of Beefcake's first match since the injury to his face over three years prior" is awkward and passive. You'd be better of starting with something more active in the effect of "Beefcake was participating in his first match in over three years..."
More to follow when I have more time...
I believe that I have addressed all of these concerns. Please feel free to look over my changes to see if they have solved the problems. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I am satisfied that you met those concerns. Royalbroil 04:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
"regrained" is a typo, it should be regained
"Schyster went back to being a singles wrestler" could be worded cleaner/less passive.
"Ted DiBiase and Mike Rotunda continue to be close friends in real life". You go from calling him Schyster to calling him Rotunda. Either explain that Rotunda is his real name or call him Schyster. Since you use Rotunda's next stage name later in that paragraph, I think that you should explain the name.
I believe that I have addressed the first two. For the third, what about changing the lead paragraph to read: "The team consisted of the Mike Rotunda, who competed under the ring name Irwin R. Schyster (I.R.S.), and  "Million Dollar Man" Ted DiBiase."? GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I am satisfied that you addressed the first 2 concerns. I like your suggestion for addressing the third concern, but I think that it's too far from the lead paragraph to be enough change. How about doing your suggestion, then editing this sentence to say "Ted DiBiase and Mike Rotunda (aka Schyster) continue to be close friends in real life". Then the sentence is clear.
I reviewed the discussion on the article's name to make sure that the article is stable and that the controversy on the name is decided. I wasn't clear on User:MPJ-DK's thoughts on the article's name, so I requested that he/she clarify their comment here. I don't want this to hold up the GA process for long, so I'll assume agreement if we don't hear something after one more day (24 hours). Royalbroil 12:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


### GA passed
I am satisfied that all criteria for GA have been met. Congratulations! I have no additional suggestions to improve the article to FA status. The article does a great job of explaining the events without speaking within the wrestling universe. Royalbroil 02:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)