Wikipedia:Peer review/Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have felling that the article is well written episode and should be ready for FA.
Any comments welcome. Please comment me on my talk page for any concerns. Thanks, JJ98 (Talk) 10:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
It's doable, but right now this will need a lot of work to get to FA. There a numerous sources currently not in use, the article lacks reviews from the time and also lacks analysis. The books by Ortved, Turner and Pinsky have good analysis in them but have yet to be implemented, while I've found numerous potential books on Google Books. There are also hundreds of potential press articles (via Newsbank) many from 1989, which will have some use. Gran2 11:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with all the comments above. Thanks for you work on this and here are some suggestions for improvement.
- A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many WP:FAs on episodes of the Simpsons at Category:FA-Class The Simpsons articles. The earliest (in terms of seasons of the Simpsons) episode that is a FA is Stark Raving Dad (Season 3) which seems like it would be a good model.
- There is an external link checker in the tool box on this page and it shows two dead links that will have to be fixed before this would go to FAC.
- As I read the article, it was not clear to me why they picked this particular episode to air first (since it was 8th made, why not any of the others?)
- Comparing this with Stark Raving Dad, this article has a Prose size (text only) of 8996 B (1505 words) "readable prose size" and 19 refs. Stark Raving Dad has a Prose size (text only) of 16 kB (2871 words) "readable prose size" (almost twice as big) and 43 refs (over twice as many). I think this shows the article could be expanded quite a bit.
- The FA crtieria - see WP:WIAFA include "1(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" This has critical reception from only two sources (both part of IGN) and both several years after it originally aired. To be comprehensive, more reviews and reviews from the time it aired are needed.
- The other FA crterion this owuld have trouble with is "1(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" (for many articles this is the most difficult criterion to meet). One example, from the lead The title of it alludes to "The Christmas Song", also known as "Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire".[2] could be tightened to just The title alludes to "The Christmas Song", also known as "Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire".[2] and there are several other places that could be polished. I would fix everything else, then get a copyedit.
- By the way, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However the bit about "The CHristmas Song" is only in the lead that I can see. Please see WP:LEAD
- Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
PS JUst saw an article on DYK about a TV episode with a lot more critical reception - Andy and April's Fancy Party May be a model. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your the peer review to Ruhrfisch and Gran2. That was very helpful. Thanks again! :) JJ98 (Talk) 22:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)