Wikipedia:Peer review/The Blue Comet/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm in need of some additional general feedback. "The Blue Comet" is the much-admired penultimate episode of The Sopranos. Sadly, there isn't a plethora of information available about the production of the series because David Chase preferred to keep it all under tight wraps but I think this article makes good use of what's out there.–FunkyVoltron talk 14:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comments from Jappalang
- Dablinks (toolbox on the right of this peer review page) shows one disambiguation link; please fix it.
- Done. Now refers to Wiktionary page explaining the word.
- SandyGeorgia (FAC's delegate) frowns on using Wikitionary (it would be similar to citing information to Wikipedia, according to her). Jappalang (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Several statements in the article are unsourced/uncited.
- Can you be more specific? Some statements use the episode as its source.
- I understand it for Plot, but doing this for other sections make things confusing and could attract trivia and original research ("Hey, you can watch the episode to know what I say about Paulie is true!"). If you are going to use the episode as a source, use
{{Cite episode}}to back up plain evident objective information. Jappalang (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- I understand it for Plot, but doing this for other sections make things confusing and could attract trivia and original research ("Hey, you can watch the episode to know what I say about Paulie is true!"). If you are going to use the episode as a source, use
Several sentences run in the vein of "noun plus -ing"; User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing tells why such structures are discouraged and suggests how they should be improved.
- I have overhauled the text to the best of my ability. See this comparison.
- Critical response is basically a collection of quotes from critics (which is further compounded by the lumping into a single paragraph). It will be better to sort them out and present a summarised and thematic analysis of what critics has said, using a few quotes for emphasis or illustration.
- The second sentence of the first paragraph ("Much praise...") is supposed to function as a summarization of the critics' opinions. The individual critical reviews are also supposed to be their overall estimation of the episode. I personally think the section achieves this.
- What makes The Sopranos location guide, Empire Movies, BlogCritics reliable sources or acknowledged experts of television? Please refer to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches on how sources are generally judged.
- Is File:Sopranos620.jpg truly the identifying shot of this episode that cannot be fully expressed by words alone? The article mentions no critical commentary of this particular scene (Bobby and the train) and it is not too hard to imagine the character as he holds the model train. How does the use of the image comply with all 10 criteria of WP:NFCC, especially #1 (free replacement possible by words) and #8 (little or no contextual significance)?
I think fixing the above and giving the article a copy-edit would make it well-placed for GA quality. Jappalang (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback. Do you think the article has a long way to go before it qualifies for FA status?–FunkyVoltron talk 15:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Reliability of sources and image use (copyrights) are generally critical issues at FAC. If opposes on such issues are valid, the article would very likely not be promoted. Jappalang (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)