Wikipedia:Peer review/Dexter (episode)/archive1

Dexter (episode)

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 February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Cornucopia and I (and 97198) have worked on this article over the last few weeks, and it was just promoted to GA status. I think that it has a really good chance of becoming a FA, but it needs some more polishing before it is taken to FAC, and any comments on how to further approve this article would be great.

Thanks, --Music26/11 21:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image comment: I doubt File:DexterPilot.jpg satisfies NFCC; a free image of a plastic doll with ribbons tied to its limbs could easily be created. I haven't seen the episode, but perhaps you could find another image that serves to identify the episode for which a free equivalent can't be created (e.g. an image of the head in Dexter's car). Bradley0110 (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I had thought about the head thrown on Dexter's car, but thought this image identified the article, but I hadn't thought about a free equivalent. There are a few possibilities this image shows Dexter after the head was thrown at him from the Ice Truck, this image shows Dexter chasing the Ice Truck. Which one do you think is better? --Music26/11 22:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, neither really. In the first image you can't really tell that the head is a head, and Dexter is quite small. The second one is a little better because it shows the ice truck, but then someone might argue that it could be any truck (bear in mind that I only comment on images that definitely fail NFCC, not borderline cases). If I had to choose between the two, I'd say the second one. Maybe you could seek a second opinion from someone with more fair-use experience? Bradley0110 (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't recommend either picture. I'll try to find a better one now. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are the best I could find: 1, 2, 3, and 4. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 04:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images 3 and 4 seem the best to me.--Music26/11 12:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict: Tricky choice. 4 is quite good, in that you could use the "costuming and make-up" rationale. 3 is a no-no since someone could argue that you could just have a free picture of the actors. What's going on in 1? Bradley0110 (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about image three. In that case, image four would be the best option, so if you think it's the best choice I'll upload it. Image one shows dexter at Jeworski's crime scene, but that image is a bit unstable, because the Jeworski side-plot is only mentioned briefly. Also, what do you think the caption should say if we use image 4?--Music26/11 16:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what caption should be used for 4--just a short descriptive one will do (rather than an absurdly long one like in The Stolen Earth). It's the fair-use rationale that matters. Bradley0110 (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image has been added.--Music26/11 16:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Natural Cut: The section 'CBS scheduling controversy' could use a better name since the group involved objected to the idea of airing the series at all rather than just the time slot. The paragraph following the PTC's statement also needs a rewrite. Start with CBS's response to the PTC (preferably elaborating on when the show's timeslot was moved to), then you can mention that some critics still objected. Or start out with the critics in question agreeing with the PTC if that's the case, and structure CBS's response accordingly.

I question how much of the editing was truly in response to the PTC as opposed to things they'd have done anyway. I remember a friend and Sopranos fan mentioning that show was going to be on A&E and saying how much of the content - obscenities, violence, nudity - would have to be edited out. I can see the timeslot shift, but censoring 'F-bombs' is something even Jon Stewart does. Natural Cut (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to fixing your concers A.S.A.P., but I don't have much time yet (since what you're asking might take some more time than minor fixes). Don't think I'm ignoring you or anything like that.--Music26/11 16:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly language and MOS nitpicks.

Name is not standard - pilot episodes are generally titled "Pilot (Series Name)" - see two FAs Pilot (House) and Pilot (Smallville), which are probably useful model articles for ideas to follow too

I suppose the article could be moved, but it's never referred to as "Pilot", it is always referred to as "Dexter", even on the DVD release. "No Such Thing as Vampires", is also a pilot episode, but the article name is not changed to what you are suggesting.--Music26/11 17:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not write TV articles, so I was just following model articles. If the name of the episode is Dexter and it is one of two pilots, then this needs to be made clearer in the article itself. As for what to call the article, could you aks at WikiProject Television? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted WikiProject Television, you can read it here.--Music26/11 12:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem sentence The PTC did not want the show to be broadcast because it "compelled viewers to empathize with a serial killer", in response, CBS replaced expletives, cut out bloody scenes and gave the show a TV-14. The direct quote needs a ref per WP:LEAD and WP:MOSQUOTE, and the word rating should be added after TV-14.