Wikipedia:Peer review/Your Friend the Rat/archive1
- 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 December 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has undergone significant improvements needs a neutral person to review it and check what's missing. I think it's now up for B-class and need your opinion about it.
Thanks, Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: This sounds like a fun short film. I have a few suggestions for improving the article.
- The lead of an article should be a summary of the main ideas in the sections below the lead. In addition, the lead should not introduce material that is undeveloped in the main text sections. Please see WP:LEAD. A good way to expand this article would be to develop the ideas in the lead. For example, you might create a "critical reception" section that would include the Annie Award information, perhaps explain what the Annie Award is, and perhaps add some comments from film critics if any are to be found. Ditto for the idea of the "longest Pixar short", which could be developed in the "Production" section. You might be able to tell us what other shorts Pixar has done, for example.
- The citations need repairs and more data. My rule of thumb is to include author, title, work, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date when all of these can be found. I tracked down and added missing elements to citation 6, which you can imitate. The "date" parameter means the date of publication rather than the access date. You can often but not always find a date on the source page. Authors are generally listed last name first, and I added parameters to citation 6 to make this easier; the cite template does the arranging automatically.
- The Manual of Style (MoS) no longer recommends the autoformatting of full dates. Please see WP:UNLINKDATES. I see a couple that you will probably want to unlink.
- Abbreviations such as 3D should be spelled out and abbreviated on first use like this: three-dimensional (3D). After that you can just use 3D, and readers will know what you mean. I would recommend doing this for 2D, CGI, and even for DVD.
- I would suggest linking 3D to the article on 3-D film. Be careful not to link to the 3-D disambiguation page. I think 2D should also be linked, probably to traditional animation.
- The MoS generally deprecates orphan paragraphs composed of only one or two sentences. You can either expand the short ones or merge them with other paragraphs.
- I see quite a few small grammar and syntax problems that a copyeditor, if you can find one, would probably catch and fix. I fixed a few but not all.
I hope these brief suggestions are helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)