Wikipedia:Peer review/Cartoon Network/archive1

Cartoon Network

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this may be reached to GA or FA. It is television network that was launched in 1992. However, I need a feedback for the peer review on the network.

Thank for your time. Regards, JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 17:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by H1nkles

I commend you for your work on this article, I will look at it from a GA criteria perspective. You'll want to come back for an FAC review once it passes GAC.

Lead

Your writing has a lot of adverbs like "originally" "primarily" "mainly", these aren't necessary. Sometimes they have a place but they also clutter up the prose and many of them can be removed.
Third cable channel behind disney and nick. Third in what? Kids' programming? It's not clear.
Overall in the lead the writing is choppy and needs to be streamlined. Here's an example:

"Since 2009, it began airing a small amount of live-action programming, specifically movies from Warner Bros. and New Line Cinema, both of which are also owned by Time Warner." Rewrite like this, "In 2009 it started airing live-action programming, including movies from Warner Bros. and New Line Cinema." No one cares that they're owned by Time Warner.

I've fix the issue. Some movie were carried from 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures and Walt Disney Pictures which are not owned by Time Warner. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 00:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LEAD for instructions on what should be in a good lead. The lead should be a summary of the entire article and this lead should be enhanced to include every subject within the article (written in a summary style).

History

The clean up banner is legitimate and should be addressed. Usually clean up banners should be handled before the article is listed at WP:PR. I can see a number of ^{[citation needed]} templates in the following sections. These should be addressed and the sourcing improved.
As a general rule every paragraph should have at least one source, and more if there are multiple assertions.
See WP:INCITE for reference anchor placement. They don't go in the middle of the sentence but rather at the end unless the assertion is very controversial.
The parenthetical reference in the first sentence is too detailed. Give a few examples of what was acquired and leave it at that.
Watch out for one sentence paragraphs. These stubs are not acceptable at GAC. Consider combining or expanding.
Make sure titles are always italicized even when not linked.
What is meant by the "Powerhouse era"? What is powerhouse music?

Programming

This is a section with no prose. Not good. Sections with just a tophat are unnecessary. Either add some prose or remove the section. I think you fold in most of the programming info in the previous section.

Related projects

Here is a section "Cartoon Network Universe: FusionFall" see above.

References

The key to references is consistency. Make sure every website ref has at least the title, url, publisher, and accessdate.
You probably want to use templates like {{cite web}} to help with consistency.
Deviantart appears to be a blog or discussion forum. This is not a credible reference. See WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY for instructions on credible references. Avoid blogs, forums, chat rooms, social networking sites etc.

Overall

As stated above the article needs a lot more referencing. This will be a major sticking point if you want it to pass GAC. * I would also seek out someone who can do a thorough copy edit.
There isn't much about the financing of the channel, advertising revenue, demographics that sort of thing. It would be nice to see some more information on these topics.
This concludes my review. Please contact me on my talk page if you have specific questions. Best of luck to you. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 22:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]