Wikipedia:Peer review/Deer Lady/archive1

Deer Lady

This article has recently passed GA and undergone a copy-edit. The GA reviewer suggested eventually taking this to FAC, and I would like to. I do however, think that undergoing a peer review first would help improve it further making that process smoother.

Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• Explain the difference between the creative arts Emmy and the regular ones.
• Paragraph 2 of release and reception seems to short.
• There is no space between the end sentence one and start of two in paragraph 2
• It's not called "Paste Magazine" just "Paste"
• Post-production and music seems like a weird pairing, can you elaborate as to why?
• Paragraph 1 of "Development and writing" links Deer Lady (the character) to the myth, the myth is later discussed. I think the link to the myth should be moved to here
• Plot seems awfully short, at under 200 words its below the limit for a plot on a season article.
• Unclear but is Deerlady a recurring character in this series?

Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I've fixed everything. I requested an additional copyedit on the plot specifically to cleanup that since I know it may be rough after the expansion. The combination of post-production and music follows the guidelines laid out at MOS:TVPRODUCTION, specifically the part that says "This section should be structured to fit the content and type of article being written. Not all shows will have information on each element. For example, if there is sufficient material about each topic, the section could be divided into subsections as above, or it might be more beneficial to have some material combined (e.g. a "Development and writing" or "Filming and visual effects" section)." I did it here for two reasons particularly; one because it seemed to make more sense to keep the information about Wayuhi together, and it would have been separated if split into two sections, and two because the music section would be exceptionally short on its own. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Aoba47

Apologies in advance as I will be unable to do a full review for this peer review, but I wanted to help out where I could. My comments are below:

• I am uncertain about File:Deer Lady Promo.jpg. It is encouraged to keep non-free media usage to a minimum, and I do not think that the image adds anything for the reader that cannot be conveyed through the prose alone. For instance, I do not think that the image really illustrates the 1990s independent film comparisons, particularly for readers who may be familiar with that style of film.
• Is the episode 30 minutes with commercials or without? Just wanted to make sure either way.
• The lead's first paragraph repeats "episode" quite a bit. I get that repetition can be tough to avoid for an article about an episode. You could either combine the second and third sentences, as done in "Janet(s)" to avoid one instance of this.
• It would be helpful to add a brief overview of the series to the lead for unfamiliar readers. A similar topic was actually brought up in this FAC. For other examples, I think that it would beneficial to provide descriptor for Bear and Deer Lady in the lead and for Rez Dogs in the plot summary. It seems the article is more so written for someone who is already familiar with this series, and I believe that would be an issue for a FAC.
• I am not sure that this part, Continuing on from the events of the previous episode, is entirely necessary or adds much. Just another suggestion to cut down on another instance of "episode".
• I am uncertain about this sentence: It received positive reviews from critics, particularly for its production design and depiction of Deer Lady's backstory. The reception section includes a paragraph about the nuns speaking gibberish, but I do not see a focus on either the production design or the Deer Lady's backstory, so this part of the lead seems unsupported to me.
• I think that the first section of the "Release and reception" paragraph would benefit from a clearer structure. I am uncertain about putting the sentence on the episode's release in the same paragraph as the reviews. I think it would be made into its own paragraph and the part on the viewer discretion notice could be brought down, as I view that as more related to the release rather than the production. Just some ideas.
• This part, After still more flashbacks, reads too informal for Wikipedia. It reads more like a commentary on the amount of flashbacks in the episode, which seems out of place in the plot summary.
• I am uncertain about these two sentences: Paste ranked the episode as the second-best of the series. and The Oklahoman ranked Bear meeting Deer Lady as the third-best moment of the entire Reservation Dogs series. While I do understand how the rankings could be important, I just wonder if other information from the reviews could either be added instead or to add to these parts. It may just be a matter of personal preference though.
• I would be consistent if you use authors and publications in the reception section or just the publication.
• The show title should be italicized in the citation titles per WP:CONFORMTITLE. The same goes for putting the episode title in single quotation marks.
• This could be a matter of personal preference, but for the images in the article, I always think that it is helpful to add the year that these photos were taken. Just provides some additional context in an easier way for readers and lets them know when the photos were taken in relation to when this episode was made and released.
• There are a few instances of punctuation inside of a quote, like with "challenge to find a median between hopefulness and hopelessness." Punctuation like this should be on the outside of the quotation marks, unless a full sentence is being quoted.

I hope that these comments are helpful and will encourage other people to participate in this peer review. I know that the peer review process can be very hit-and-miss. This episode talks about an important subject matter, and I respect all of the work and time that you put into this article. Aoba47 (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you for your comments, I appreciate this a lot! I can confirm that the 30 minutes is without commercials (since this is a streaming show the run times are a little more flexible). I've addressed most everything else and I think it definitely improved a lot. I'll put this through for another pass from GOCE before I take it to FAC to hopefully cleanup any of the text that I modified a bit. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I am glad that I was able to help. Best of luck with the future FAC. I will be more than happy to do a more proper review at that time. I have always a great experience with the GOCE, and it is a good idea to have another perspective on things. I hope you are having a great end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)