Wikipedia:Peer review/Will Zimmerman/archive1

Will Zimmerman

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 the article failed a good article promotion. It seems the problem lies at the development section (the reviewer argued it had trivia) I have since rewritten that section, but I feel more can be done to identify some more issues (in development and elsewhere). I want the article to be brought to GA standard.

Thanks, Matthew RD 22:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Prose

I'm not familiar with in-universe articles. Is it common to refer to the subject by first name? In biogs, it's last name. Check out some recently-promoted in-universe FAs character profiles?

Like Pauline Fowler, referred to by first name. -- Matthew RD 18:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some weaknesses in general prose. Examples from the first few paragraphs: "head of the Sanctuary Network" (wassat?) "to become her recent protégé" Recent? As opposed to? Do you mean latest? Or would it be better not to have a word, especially as it has run more than one season? What's a "web series"? You've not yet mentioned anything about where this programme appears and I'm not familiar with this jargon. "Critical reactions behind the character" Where? "with some television critics comparing Will to Stargate SG-1 character Daniel Jackson" implication being that's a good thing, rather than a neutral observation. "Constellation Award" wassat? "Character arc" wassat? "are said to" makes it sound like you have no source, but I think you do. Surely all the character's backstory is "said to", but there's no need to spell that out. "Jack Zimmerman (Dunne)" does that mean the same actor plays his own ancestor? I think you mean that, but it's unclear. "violent creature" are we talking lions, dogs or aliens? "Victim of Bigfoot" is unclear on several grounds.
Much of the plot material is written in present tense, which I personally find jarring. But I'm just one person... is that what recent similar FAs have done?

Again check out Pauline Fowler, an FA on a fictional character. -- Matthew RD 18:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensiveness

Hard for me to comment, as I'm no expert, but seems to cover most of what I'd expect, but here are some thoughts:
Any book, magazine or comic coverage of the character?
You mention the character's appearance only when it deviates from the norm. What's the norm?

I have no idea what you mean. -- Matthew RD 18:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something brief about where this can be seen would be good

Images

Someone other that me can check on the licensing of the ones you have, but there's not many there - be creative, but not ridiculous and see if you can introduce some images of other characters or locations important to the character

Referencing

For GA level, it's reasonably densely referenced. However, it depends heavily on primary source material, which is not a great idea. Not sure how to get round it for this kind of topic. Again, check out recent FAs and see how they handle it.

The episodes (primary sources) are the episodes, which are only really found in the plot section. One example of this is Rachel Berry. WP:TVPLOT also states "Since TV episodes are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable." -- Matthew RD 18:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

Seems to be laid out in a logical manner.

That's it from me - hope that's helpful. --Dweller (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to peer review. The notes do appear to be helpful. -- Matthew RD 18:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]