Wikipedia:Peer review/Who Made Huckabee?/archive2

Who Made Huckabee?

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, after seeing this article survive AfD, I'd really like to work on bringing it up to Good Article status. A little work has been done already (mostly on the naming), but any suggestions, ideas, comments, and advice would really be appreciated. Thanks. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 16:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 2008.

Comments by Wackymacs (talk · contribs):

In the lead alone, I found plenty of poor prose (I did a minor copyedit, but there's a lot more work needed throughout the article).
Specifically, there are examples throughout the article of misuse of commas, unnecessary bold text, choppy sentences and redundant words.
There are several names in the 'Beginning' section which are in bold unnecessarily, seems to violate WP:MOS.
- Done Unnecessary bolding removed. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 16:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is overlinked. Words are linked which should not be, like "fictional", "facts", "global warming", "education", and many more. We know what these means, so why link them?
- --- Done Fixed, I think. (See: here) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 18:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Months and days on their own should not be linked, like "February 1" for example.
- Done Fixed.
Plenty of the citations are not properly formatted. Please see WP:CITE for more info.
All online refs need access dates, publisher info and author name (if applicable).
Get rid of ref 4 and 43. We can't link to YouTube videos because of uncertainty over Copyright and many other reasons.
- What's exactly wrong with it? It's an original work that wasn't exactly copyrighted by the three guys who made it. I'm not sure why it needs to go. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 17:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 7, dead: http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entertainment/2007/12/14/wga_strike_shuts_down_most_scripted_shows/8516
- Done Dead link noted in text. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 16:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This baffles me. Why leave dead links there? You need to remove those citations and replace them with ones which work. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've replaced the dead link accordingly (see here). — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 18:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Date is formatted incorrectly in ref 17.
- Done Corrected. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 16:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 24 is not needed, as the photo is already shown in the article.
- Done Citation removed. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 16:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 27, 28 both say "in english" - Why? You only need to state the language if its not English.
- Done Corrected. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 16:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 37, dead: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iF8wKRfboqefXRDnYOmCOhaCdrSAD8UKC8OG1
- Done Dead link already noted in text. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 16:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This baffles me. Why leave dead links there? You need to remove those citations and replace them with ones which work. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've replaced the latter dead link accordingly (see here). — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 17:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://sensitivitytothings.com/2008/02/05/obrien_cobert/ a reliable source? Please see WP:RS and WP:V.
YouTube link needs removing from External links section, for copyright reasons.
- Actually, according to the US Copyright Office: A "derivative work," that is, a work that is based on (or derived from) one or more already existing works, is copyrightable if it includes what the copyright law calls an "original work of authorship." Derivative works, also known as "new versions," include such works as translations, musical arrangements, dramatizations, fictionalizations, art reproductions, and condensations. Any work in which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship is a derivative work or new version. Therefore, I think that link can stay. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 17:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done I've removed that YouTube link from the external links (see here.) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 18:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you check WP:PRV to find someone to copyedit this once you have cleared some other things up first.
I hope my review is helpful. Let me know if you need further comments or any help.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you've been a really big help and it's hugely appreciated; I've already started to iron out of some of the kinks you've noticed. I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you mean by "misuse of commas, unnecessary bold text, choppy sentences and redundant words", though — could you be a little bit more specific and point some actual examples out? It would be much clearer to me what you're getting at if you would provide some actual examples.

BTW, the YouTube links mentioned are fine — the fan-made video parodying the feud is an original work, and while the mock trailer for the actual fight actually uses clips from the originals, it is a derivative work and therefore passes.

Thanks again for your comments! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 16:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem with using YouTube for your references. You are assuming that readers will want to play a video, and you are also assuming that their computer/web browser is capable of playing the video. It is also bad in terms of accessibility, for example, the video will be useless to someone who's deaf, whereas they can read text. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay — I get it now. But, what do I do once I remove those links? I mean, the YouTube video in the external links I can get rid of easily. But I won't have any citation for the phrase "even eliciting a YouTube parody by fans". How am I to exactly cite that without linking directly to said video? — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 17:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the videos is of a TV show, you can cite the show/episode by its name, the publisher being whoever produced it (the network company), and the date as the date it aired, for example. You can also include the quote within the footnote. This is often done when people cite a video game, for example. In the case of the parody video, you should be able to find a reliable source (newspaper, magazine, etc), which mentions it which should be good enough. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the YouTube link from the external links section (see here). — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 18:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I found this [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56052 column] by Chuck Norris himself, in which he reflects on the feud and also adds a twist to it. Should I include it in the external links setion? — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 17:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Done I've used Norris' column as a citation for the "Reception" section. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 16:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sillyfolkboy Just for reference - "The Colbert Report (with hard T's)" is an example of unnecessary use of bolding. The significance of this is not really put in perspective. Sure it's a joke, but is it really important to the article? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]