Wikipedia:Peer review/Strictly Come Dancing/archive1

Strictly Come Dancing

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

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 July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is close to good article but needs that extra push. I can see some unsourced material and a lot of red links.

Thanks, Lizzie Harrison 16:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, but I think it needs a lot of work before it is ready for GA. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - the lead should be longer too, probably four paragraphs per WP:LEAD.
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 but the BBC HD fact seems to only be in the lead.
My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but many of the section headers are not in the lead at all.
The article may need fewer sections / headers too - for example, could the Christmas specials all be in one section?
Biggest problem I see with the article is a lack of references throughout. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref, but there are whole sections without a ref.
Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed, but current refs 42 to 52 are just title and publisher. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
The article has many paragraphs and even sections that are quite short (one or two sentences) - in almost all cases these should either be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve flow.
The article is inconsistent in its presentation of material. For example Series 1 and 2 seems not to have their own articles, and Series 1 has almost no explanatory text, just a series of lists / tables. I would have an article for each series and have the main tables of contestants and order of finish etc. in the sub-article (the tables do not need to be in both places). See WP:Summary style
The statistics section also seems like it could split off into a separate table (if this even notable at all).

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 _><>°^° 03:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]