Wikipedia:Peer review/Veronica Mars/archive2

Veronica Mars

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 October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as a newly-promoted GA, that User:Cornucopia and I hope to improve to FA status. Note that the article has been extensively revised since the prior peer review.

Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for those reviewing the article, please treat it like a(n) FAC; i.e. be as harsh and strict as you can be! ;) A "support" or "oppose" would also be good, so we know whether you would support or oppose it at FAC. Thanks. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- What makes the following reliable sources?
  - http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800019748/bio
    - Not sure what would make this NOT a reliable source. It appears to be commercial and I don't see a way to submit content to it.... Am I missing something? Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - http://www.neptunesite.com/dohringinterview.htm
    - Another fansite, looks like it meets WP:SELFPUB Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - http://marsinvestigations.net/index.php
    - The links to marsinvestigations.net, which is a self-admitted fansite, are all to interviews of the cast and crew, which appear to follow WP:SELFPUB. Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - http://whedonesque.com/comments/7502
    - Whedonesque.com is a primary source for what Joss Whedon posts as 'Joss'. As I understand it, it's a reasonable use of a citation to that site per WP:SELFPUB. Jclemens (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - http://www.aintitcool.com/
    - I don't see a reference to this in the article at the moment. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's used in the reception, as Ain't It Cool News had Veronica Mars on two (I think) of its "best lists". Since it has a Wikipedia page, I think its okay. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 06:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You want to be careful using primary sources such as Rob Thomas' site for anything but uncontroversial fact or quotes.
  - Is there any specific quote or assertion that strikes you as excessively reliant on his site? Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.mediavillage.com/jmentr/2005/07/22/web-07-22-05/ would not ever load for me.
  - Agreed, I can't get it to load either. Replaced with Internet Archive link. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So no featured content can ever use a WP:SELFPUB site, even for noncontroversial statements? See, I follow the policy chain like... WP:WIAFL references WP:RS which references WP:SPS, which is followed by WP:SELFPUB (both being paragraphs within WP:V. Looking at that, it would appear that if the (admittedly pretty limiting) conditions of WP:SELFPUB are met, the source should be acceptable within both WP:RS and WP:V. However, I don't doubt that actual current consensus can markedly differ from what is written... does it? Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Here's a review as if it were at FAC, although I do not usually weigh in on TV shows there. Anyway, here are some nitpicky suggestions for improvement.

Should the plot synopses say who the killer was in the Season One arc, or the solution to the bus crash or murder in Season Two?
Still some repetition, for example Plot has Stosh "Piz" Piznarski and Parker Lee are introduced as the respective roommates of Wallace and Mac while the Cast and characters section repeats this as The third season introduced two new series regulars, Parker Lee and Stosh "Piz" Piznarski. I also note this mentions the Mac character before he is described later in the paragraph.
~~Verb choice in Kyle Gallner acted as "Beaver", ... is a bit odd - perhaps "portrayed" or "appeared as" instead of "acted"?~~

Fixed. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Casting section is all one large paragraph - could it be split into two?~~

Cornucopia already fixed this. Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rearrange As television scripts paid more, Thomas wrote the television version of the teen detective project before it became a novel as a spec script. to something like As television scripts paid more, Thomas wrote the television version of the teen detective project as a spec script before it became a novel.

Cornucopia already fixed this. Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So say what happened instead For the third mystery, Thomas had wanted to present a situation where the Wallace and Mac could be fully involved, "key players [with] really interesting stuff to do".[21]

It does, it was scrapped and replaced with find stand-alone episodes. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 06:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Assistant Location Manager Steven Lee said that the filming locations were ~~decided~~ [chosen?] by the director and by the production designer, Alfred Sole.~~

Cornucopia already fixed this. Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MOSQUOTE the ref should follow the quote in things like Sole reportedly "really liked the look and feel of the school" and San Diego State University invited the series with "open arms".

Cornucopia already sufficiently cited this, I believe. Two quotes from the same source in the same sentence should be fine with only one cite, right? Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 _><>°^° 04:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]