Wikipedia:Peer review/House (TV series)/archive1

House (TV series)

• 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 December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I renewed the page and I think it's close to FA quality, but has a few things left to be taken care of. The crew section needs expansion, the DVD table needs referencing and there are problably things I have missed. All help is appreciated.

Thanks very much, --Music26/11 22:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hm. I can't see any huge changes that need to be made. The only thing I noticed is that Cuddy and Cameron don't seem to be covered that well in the casting section. Reyk _YO! 10:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While this looks fairly good, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The language is generally good but there are some places that are a bit slangy andcould be more professional / clear. Just in the lead, for example The show's premise was created by Shore, who got the idea for the curmudgeonly title character from a doctor's visit. "from a doctor's visit" is unclear - I assume it from Shore's visit to a doctor, but it sounds as if he was visited by a curmodgeonly physician. Or House received heavy critical acclaim ... is just unclear - I think it means very favorable acclaim, but am not sure. Or House is currently in its fifth season of broadcasting. should be just "As of 2009, House is in its fifth season. or perhaps The 2008-2009 season is House's fifth. Avoid "currently" as things change and "of broadcasting" was unneeded. I would get someone to copyedit this before FAC.
• Article needs more references, for example the first and third paragraphs in Series overview have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. The third paragraph has several direct quotes without refs.
• Since one of the interesting things about the show are story arcs over a whole season or several episodes within a season, I would mention those in the Series overview section. For example, in the drug addiction section (which I would mention in the lead), why not mention the policeman who hounded House and his associates for most of a season? Or wny not mention the winnowing of 40 candidates to the new team here? Or the Selena Ward character romance?
• The ref here does not seem to fit - This was referred to jokingly in the season four episode "Ugly", in which a documentary crew follows Dr. House and his team throughout the episode. At one point House starts walking with his team and the camera crew follows, shooting in the "walk and talk" style. As House and his team are walking away, Dr. Foreman asks where they are going. House responds: "Walks look good on camera. They give the illusion of the story moving forward."[63] The ref appears to only be for the episode where this heappens, but saying that this is referred to here without a ref appears to be original research.
• Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase, so change things like Creator David Shore won a writing Emmy in 2005 for the first season episode "Three Stories".[125] Shore also received a Humanitas Prize for the episode[126]. Actually these two sentences could be combined to something like Creator David Shore won a writing Emmy in 2005 for the first season episode "Three Stories",[125] and also received a Humanitas Prize for the episode.[126]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the review, I haven't had much time to work on the article, but you made very clear points. Thanks.--Music26/11 12:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Putting the ref after the full stop makes it look like ref [126] is for the whole sentence. Since we use logical quoting, why should we use illogical and wrong referencing? -- Jeandré, 2009-01-18t10:38z

Whut...? The reference is for the whole sentence. (frown).--Music26/11 12:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Humanitas ref (previously 126, now 128) is only for the second part of the sentence, and should therefore go before the fullstop, not after because it doesn't mention the Emmy. With the ref after the full stop it looks like the Humanitas ref is for the whole sentence — which is wrong. -- Jeandré, 2009-01-24t07:47z

I get what you mean now (sorry, I didn't undertood you the first time), but ref 127 is for the emmy award and is therefore in the middle of the sentence (after the mentioning of the emmy win).--Music26/11 11:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The Emmy ref is in the right place (BTW, the PDF is only a nomination list and doesn't say that "Three stories" won - you'll need to find another ref for that), what I'm pointing out is that while the manual of style states that "Inline citations are generally placed after any punctuation such as a comma or period", doing so in this case for the Humanitas ref makes it wrong - ignore the manual of style and instead get the ref right: before the full stop. -- Jeandré, 2009-01-24t16:22z

I've put both refs at the end of the sentence, so it clears both points. Note that the emmy reference does say that the award was for "Three Stories".--Music26/11 17:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The Emmy ref doesn't mention the Humanitas prize, and the Humanitas ref doesn't mention the Emmy - putting both at the end of the sentence implies that they do. Some articles do put all refs at the end of sentences or paragraphs, but refs are then broken when sentences are shuffled or rewritten (acceptable exceptions being tables with specific ref colums where horizontal space for certain fields are the same). It would be better to take the Emmy ref back, and put the Humanitas ref before the full stop.

The Emmy ref says "Three Stories" was nominated, it doesn't say they won it. -- Jeandré, 2009-01-25t12:37z

I've put the ref before the fullstop, but if I ever take this article to FAC, reviewers will problably complain about it, so you'll have to back me up on that. Also the winners of the emmy in the emmy ref are printed in bold, so it does say the episode won the award.

I'll be there, but I'm not going to see any season 5 episodes until it comes out on DVD so I'm not going to read certain sections. The Emmy nom PDF ref actually bolds all show headings - see the two bold Lost titles that lost on page 32; I've put in a ref that says Shore won the Emmy and reworded the sentence a bit. -- Jeandré, 2009-01-25t22:09z