Wikipedia:Peer review/The Political Cesspool/archive1

The Political Cesspool

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, while it has already made Good Article status, I eventually plan to nominated it for Featured Article status and I would like to know if there is anything I can, or should, do to improve the page before I nominate it as a FAC.

Thanks, Stonemason89 (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I see that it is intended to bring this to FAC. If it is to succeed there, a lot of preparatory work will have to take place. In particular:-

Lead: this will need to be rewritten and extended so that it becomes a summary of the whole article, rather than the present brief introduction to the topic. The lead material should not be too detailed; the precise comings and goings of various co-hosts and other personnel can be left for later.
Foundation and History: at present this section reads rather disjointedly. Information about Edwards's pilot's licence is irrelevant, but some important details are missing. Information is needed about the date of the show's first broadcast, about initial audience ratings and public reaction. Why did they change stations in March 2005? What effect did this have on ratings? Did Edwards have any background in broadcasting - what did he do before assisting Buchanan in 2000? Come to that, what sorts of backgrounds did the other hosts have? All of this is highly relevant information which needs to be researched and included.
Guests: This section should appear later in the article, when we have learned more about the nature of the show. As to the section, a bullet-pointed list of over 50 names is inappropriate; summarise in text the general characteristics of the show's guests. The stories you tell of various guests' appearances are quite interesting, and should be kept.
Statement of principles: The section should not begin with "It..." - rather, begin "The Political Cesspool describes..." It would be worth using the preamble to the list of principles, as contained in your source, to present a more detailed description of the show's philosophy. Use quotation marks to indicate that the nine listed points taken verbatim from the show's Statement of Principles as shown on its website.
Views on race: This section is presented almost entirely in random anecdotal form. The style is journalistic rather than encyclopedic. The subsection on Stormfront is included with no description of what Stormfront is. It is also worth noting that, although race ideology is clearly a paramount concern of this show, its "principles" list other characteristic extreme-right issues (anti-gay, isolationist, etc). There is no reference in the article to how this broader agenda has been promoted by the show.
Activism: again, just a couple of anecdotes. The second seems to involve Edwards personally, rather than the Cesspool show. Is there a history of political activism promoted by the show, or was the Memphis incident a one-off?
Awards: these are not "awards" in the sense of carrying any general recognition of merit. This information may be included somewhere in the article, but it is not worth a separate section in the article.
References: all citations should include name of publisher; hardly any do at the moment.

My advice is that you do the necessary work as indicated above, then bring the article back here for a further review before nominating for FA. I'll be happy to look again then. Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. Stonemason89 (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]