Wikipedia:Peer review/Skipper Roberts/archive1

Skipper Roberts

I'm not sure what this article needs to become better. Does anyone have any suggestions? Tikallover 03:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The prose in this is absolutely disgraceful. Find a good copyeditor. Also, why was this doll created? How did she sell? Why was she withdrawn? How collectable is she now? Answer these and you are on your way. Dev920 19:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is wrong with the prose? Is it the grammer, the spelling, the style...? I'll try to fix those other mistakes you mentioned. Tikallover 20:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just makes absolutely no sense. For example: "She grew taller and more graceful." Than what? We're talking about a doll here, not a teenage girl. "Her eyes were very big and blue." What has this to do with anything? "She no longer looked like an innocent child, but more like a girl on the brink of becoming a woman." SHE'S A DOLL!!! "She had a new headmold." Why is this sentence so short? How did it differ from the previous headmold? "She made her debut 1964." You would want to put and "in" in there.

Basically the prose is far too undeveloped. There are sentences which have about five words. There should be a lot more commas indicating clauses and pauses. And the entire article is written as if Skipper Roberts is a real person growing up. Skipper did not "grow an inch taller and develop small breasts." She was designed that way by Mattel. Why? Constantly ask yourself this and you will create a good article. Dev920 21:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fix some of those problems and make the article sound more like it is talking about a doll, not a real human girl. Are there any other suggestions? Tikallover 23:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is much better. There are still some short sentences that you may wish to deal with, but that's all I personally can think of specifically. See what someone else says, and and thank you for being so prompt. Dev920 16:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So does anyone else have any suggestions? Tikallover 18:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You explain the reason of Skipper's creation in the intro and no where in the body of the article. The intro should be an overview of the entire article. It should not include information that isn't expalined elsewhere. I noticed you only have internet sources, you should find books either in a library or book store about Barbie dolls or toys in general. Books like these often contain more in depth info. Medvedenko 03:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the reason Skipper was created to the "About Skipper" section. I'll try to get a book from the library about Skipper or Barbie too. Tikallover 18:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That info is better placed in the version section. Its like pre-history in a history section. Medvedenko 03:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. I moved it; thanks! Tikallover 14:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 14:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]