Wikipedia:Peer review/Degrassi: The Next Generation/archive1

Degrassi: The Next Generation

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… I did this all the wrong way, because I took it to FAC in December (it failed), then a GA review in January (it failed!), and it has just been given GA status. I'd like to take it to Featured status, so any comments are appreciated and addressed. The article is rather large too (101kb), so any ideas on how to shrink it at all would be good.

Thanks, Matthew | talk | Contribs 22:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PeterSymonds (talk · contribs) edit

Addressed comments by PeterSymonds (talk · contribs)

First few comments as I'm about to go to bed, but I was struck by how excellently referenced the article is!

Be careful with overusing adjectives: "...the development of the new series took a new direction."

done

"...((which had by that time spun off Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, and Star Trek: Voyager)..." Is there any need for this sentence? (Perhaps keep the Next Generation one for obvious reasons, however;) I'm not a great Science Fiction fan, but isn't Star Trek series essentially made up of those?

done I would say the Star Trek franchise was, and that each incarnation is a series of that francise, but I changed it.

"the producers decided to create a website..." I think it would be better to use the direct past tense, so "the producers created a website..." It flows more easily I feel.
"the producers decided to create a website with a "virtual school" that fans could "enroll" in, ensuring a steady stream of e-mails from their classmate characters." At the moment, that sentence is referring to the producers getting emails from their classmate characters. :)
"and buzz about ongoing subplots." A bit colloquial. I would say "and discuss ongoing subplots" or something.
"threatened the owner of a Degrassi fansite with a lawsuit to hand over the ownership of three domains" I think more needs to be said on why they were threatened, because it's not clear.
"producers instead settled on another domain www.degrassi.tv." I wouldn't embed external links in the main body of the text. I would instead move it to the footnotes, eg. "settled on another domain name.<ref>[www.degrassi.tv]</ref>
"The two-part pilot episode, "Mother and Child Reunion" brought back many Degrassi Junior High and Degrassi High actors for a ten year high-school reunion, and also introduced four new students to Degrassi Community School." Needs a citation. Also, I think this sentence is introduced too suddenly, because the two-part pilot episode isn't discussed earlier, so the text seems a bit unrelated to the rest.

I removed it completely. The same information is provided in a better way in other places in the article.

Anyway, more to follow; I'll get back to it tomorrow. PeterSymonds | talk 22:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks so far! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

RBC should be written in full (Royal Bank of Canada) in the first instance, for people unfamiliar with that bank.
"The current executive producers are Linda Schuyler (co-producer of Jimmy Playing with Time (1979), X-Rated (1993), co-executive producer of the Degrassi franchise (1979-1992), Riverdale (1997), Instant Star (2006)),[17] Stephen Stohn (executive producer of the 25th, 27th, 29th, 31st and 35th Juno Awards),[18] and Brendon Yorke (previously a script-writer, story editor and executive story editor on D:TNG)." Is there any reason to include their other films? It clogs up the sentence with the brackets; I would suggest simply wikilinking to the person (if the article exists, which I assume it does).
Further to the above comment, all the people mentioned in that paragraph could have wikilinks; I assume their individual articles exist.
"Script-writing for each new season begins six months before filming starts, and even before the season is ordered." Needs a citation, unless the whole paragraph is covered by the reference at the end.
"has gone on to direct sixteen more episodes, Stefan Scaini has directed 13 episodes and Bruce McDonald has directed 9 episodes." Full stop should appear after "sixteen more episodes", and a comma should be between "...episodes and..." in the sentence.
I think there needs to be consistency with numbering. Sometimes they're written as numbers, and sometimes they're written as numbers. I forget the rule, but after 10 I think they're written as numbers. That needs to be checked.
Removed. There's no guarantee these numbers will be updated following each episode. I'll add more people soon.
"The thread is on-going, and Stohn still participates, even though the series is into its seventh season." Needs a citation. Also, I'd say "on-going as of 2008".
For the first instance of "D:TNG", I'd write it out in full, followed by the initials. I had to think about it for a moment when I first read it.

It is given in the lead...

"The A storyline opens and closes the episode, is usually driven by one character and is the most focal." I'd reword to: "The A storyline, which opens and closes the episode, is usually driven..." Also, most focal what? The sentence ends quite abruptly.
"...are not always resolved by the end of the episode, and are carried over to the next, or create a mini-arc." Needs rewording. The "or create a mini-arc" section is out syntactically out of place with the rest of the sentence I think.
The first paragraph in the "Opening sequence" section is unreferenced.
Be consistent with introductions. Sometimes you write it as D:TNG but sometimes you write it out in full. I'd suggest writing it out in full in the first instance in every section, then the initials, but you might not agree. At any rate, more consistency is needed.

I've written it out fully the first instant in each section, but not each subsection.

"...features a mix of original, emo, indie and pop music". Wikilinks might be helpful, especially as those words are specialist to music (in this context).
"He also works with actors Jake Epstein and Melissa McIntyre when writing music..." Sudden tense change. I'd write it all in the past tense unless things are still on-going, eg. the website discussion.

I changed it all to present tense as it all still applies

"Popular culture songs have been used sparingly in the series, mainly because of budget constraints." Needs a citation.

switched the period with a semi-colon, the reference after the second sentence now applies.

"Examples of this are the songs played at Ashley's party in the first season episode "Jagged Little Pill" and at the wedding reception in "Weddings, Parties, Anything"." Needs a citation.
" The building is a 100,000-square-foot former printing factory, converted in 1997 for Epitome. The studios consist of four soundstages and a backlot." It might be better if these sentences were combined, unless they're covered by separate references. If that's the case, the first sentence needs a citation I think.
"In DJH..." What's DJH? First instances of initials should be written out in full in the first instance. Same for DH.
"...where the students hang out..." A bit colloquial.
"The hallways are stencilled with inspirational sayings, such as "the perfect human being is all human", which was found at the Etobicoke School for the Arts, one of the schools used for research." Needs a citation. Also, I think "inspirational" is a bit POV.

removed. And the citation at the end of the paragraph covers it all.

"...bland to take the edge off..." Edge off might be a bit colloquial.
"looking beautiful and high class." POV. Unless you quote someone calling it "beautiful and high class".

That actually was in the reference, so I double-quote-marked it.

"a stairway and balcony were installed" should be "was".
"and not all in the same plane." What plane?

I'm guessing they (the book) mean geometric plane. Wikilinked.

"...it has been replaced by..." I'd just say "it was replaced by" for flow
What's a break room? I assume it's where the cast take their break, but that needs to be made more clear.

It is actually a pool hall, as evidenced on screen, but the Epitome production website calls it a break room.

"For the new generation of students, the producers chose eleven children from six hundred auditionees,[33] hoping to provide a group of characters the target audience of teenagers could relate to, rather than actors in their twenties pretending to be teenagers, something other shows of the same period, such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Dawson's Creek which were targeting the same audience, were doing." Wow, a long sentence. I would split it. Also, move the mid-sentence reference to the end, as it's quite distracting.
"...sweet and innocent..." POV.
"...bad-boy..." POV. I think all the adjectives in that paragraph need to be backed up by quotes or removed.
The last few paragraphs of the "Main roles" section are made up of short sentences. Could these be combined?
"...was bumped down..." A bit colloquial.
"...became a huge fan of the..." POV outside of quotes.
"He also had Shannen Doherty's character Rene wear a Degrassi jacket throughout his Mallrats film and had Jason Lee's character in Chasing Amy specifically mention Degrassi Junior High as a TV show he would want to be watching rather than going out." Sentence is quite long and unwieldy.
"...originally slated..." A bit colloquial.
I'd prefer the references to be placed at the end of sentences. In the paragraph in which the above comment was taken from, you have two sentences mid-sentence, but none at the end. Mid sentence refs are quite distracting, and should be used sparingly.
"...the Canadian French language channel, broadcasts..." I don't think there's a need for the comma.
"Seasons one to five of D:TNG premiered in Canada on CTV before they were aired in America on The N. Seasons six and seven, however, premiered on The N, months before CTV aired them." How many months? Also, that paragraph's unreferenced.
"In December 2006, Program Partners had reached agreements with the Tribune Company for every station it owned, as well as some stations owned by Belo, Clear Channel Communications, Granite Broadcasting Corporation, Gray Television, Hubbard Broadcasting Corporation, Pegasus Communications, and The CW Plus affiliated stations, clearing D:TNG in 60% of the country, including all 5 of the Top 5 markets, with 8 of the Top 10 markets, 15 of the Top 20 and 18 of the Top 25 markets." Quite long and unwieldy.
"While the syndicator..." Who's the syndicator? Or is it general?
"While the syndicator prefers the show to be scheduled in the late-afternoon hours (5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.), the show meets the criteria to be listed as E/I programming, and many networks, even those owned by the same parent company schedule it to suit their needs and use it to partially fulfill their E/I requirements (three hours per week)." Again, long and unwieldy. The reason I bring these up is because skimreaders and those unfamiliar with the topic might not bother reading it.
"Most E/I programming generally airs between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday, but legally they can air any time between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. local time, and some stations show E/I programming during hours when very few children would watch, such as after 10:00 a.m. on weekdays, when they are in school." Needs a citation.
"The episodes are a Windows Media 10 file, and will belong to the owner forever, but can only be burned onto a disc three times and copied to a device three times. An individual episode costs C$1.99, and a season costs C$29.99." I think that needs to be "the episodes are in a Windows...". Also, is there a wikilink to the format as well as the brand? Is it available in RealPlayer as well? I think the readers would benefit with a conversion of the currency to USD as well as Canadian dollars. Is there a reason why listeners can only download it 3 times?

I don't know why there's a limit, but I removed the prices per WP:DIRECTORY.

"In America, the show is also through Apple Inc.'s iTunes Store for playback on an iPod or within the iTunes software." Should that be "the show is also available through...?"
I'd wikilink "commercials" to "advert" or whatever the article is here.
"introducutory" Spelling error.
"A single episode costs C$1.99; the cost for an entire season varies between C$19.99 and C$29.99." Needs a citation.
"The Degrassi: The Next Generation DVD boxsets are released in Canada by Alliance Atlantis, and in America by FUNimation Entertainment. Each season boxset includes extra features such as pictures, karaoke sessions, audition tapes, bloopers, deleted scenes and commentaries." Needs a citation.
"The three episode arc from..." A bit colloquial. I'd say "originate from" or something.
"In season four, an episode featuring a storyline about a school shooting received 930,000 viewers,[1] its highest ever rating." Reference should be at the end of the sentence.
I think oral sex needs to be wikilinked.
"...D:TNG still finds itself under fire..." A bit colloquial.
""has a cleaner, more polished look, has lost its edge [and offers] nothing new to viewers familiar with the groundbreaking preceding series, nor to anyone else who has watched the deluge of teen dramas since…there is a sense of deja vu with regards to the plots and characters". Unreferenced quote (all quotes should have references, even though a second part of the quote is referenced further on).
"...were furnished with an edited copy..." I don't like "furnished", think about something like "presented" or "given" or something.
"...having an abortion after sleeping with her boyfriend". Wikilink abortion. Also, I'd prefer it rephrased to "having an abortion after having sexual intercourse with her boyfriend", to make it less colloquial.
"An episode from a later season depicted a character allowing herself to be filmed topless by another student at a party, who later circulated the clip on the Internet without her permission." Needs a citation.
"The series also came under fire..." Again, a bit colloquial.
"The second mini-series, Degrassi Unscripted, premiered on August 27, 2004. Eight half-hour episodes documented the lives of different Degrassi: The Next Generation actors. The first five episodes aired in the weeks before D:TNG fourth season began; the final three episodes were held back and aired before the second block of the season in June 2005. The actors featured were Miriam McDonald, Adamo Ruggiero, Cassie Steele, Jake Epstein, Lauren Collins, Stacy Farber, Aubrey Graham and Melissa McIntyre." Paragraph unreferenced.
"...actors in character, some had turned into zombies..." I'd say "some of whom had turned..."
"The episode was directed by Stefan Brogren,[181] and originally made as a series of Degrassi Minis webisodes, or "zombiesodes",[182][183] and was made available on The N and CTV's broadband streaming viewers, as five "Zombiesodes" with an extra "Snaggable" of Aubrey Graham dancing to a Halloween themed rap performed by Brogren." Sentence is quite long and unwieldy. Too many conjunctions. :)
"The N released The N Soundtrack through Nick Records on August 28, 2006 in the United States." Needs a citation.
In the footnotes, you have names like "Ellis, p.X" but no references, giving the full name, date, publisher. I suggest another section be written; see Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll#Notes for an example.

For some films, you put them in quote marks, and for others, you italicise them. I'd like consistency; personally, I prefer italics, but it's up to you as long as they're uniform throughout.

Hmm.. I can only see film titles in itallics, and episode titles in quote marks. Could you be specific? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 01:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, my mistake, I was mistaking some films for episodes and vice versa. Apologies.

"The episode aired on The N in America, but never aired in Canada." Needs a citation.

How do you cite something that hasn't happened? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 01:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point. It's up to you, but I thought it might help to have a reference to say it never aired in Canada? Also, I think more could be said about why it didn't, if it's to hand, but it was a minor point. :)

All done (except the reference for that one episode not airing. I don't see how it can be done). -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 01:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PeterSymonds | talk 21:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Further comments capped. PeterSymonds | talk 07:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Collectonian (talk · contribs) edit

A few things I noticed in my first scan, and keeping FAC in mind:

Addressed comments by Collectonian (talk · contribs)

All of the cited stuff in the second paragraph of the lead should be part of the reception. Remember, per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the article. In a main article of this length, a cited statement should be rare as it should already be supported by the article body.
Following through with that, the intro needs rewriting per the TV MOS and WP:LEAD to better summarize the article. (and why is 131 bolded?)
Throughout the article, I noticed there a few questionable sources that do not appear to meet WP:RS, most particularly degrassi.ca (an unofficial fansite)

Production section

There is a picture of Emma noting she inspired it...any particularly reason the picture is of Emma from a later season, instead of from episode 1?
What does the fansite threat have to do with the original concept?
Are the last two paragraphs in the Executive producers, script-writers and directors necessary? Can that whole section be restructured? The first paragraph of "Executive producers, script-writers and directors" could be move to the top of the section as a lead out, then move into concept (without headers), and then maybe mention the executive producer and the like (without the credits and header). The episode format section could also worked into a longer main production section. The other three sections are fine as subsections.
Several statements from all of the production section seem to be unsourced and most of "opening sequence" seems to be unsourced.

Cast

Unless the section can be expanded to explain why each particularly actor was chosen for their role, are the character qualifiers necessary? Can the section be expanded to include the reasons why various people left and were added?

Will look at other sections later. Collectonian (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done, except for the following:

Had the article been copyedited?

No

Double use of "inspired by" when image says inspired by Emma but text says inspired by Star Trek.

To me it says the series was inspired by Emma, but the title was inspired by Star Trek. Is this unclear? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 02:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try to find another word for one of the instances? Just seems odd to see the same word used for both. For the series, it seems like they were already planning a series, but remembered Emma and decided to focus the series on her rather than them remembering Emma and being inspired to make a series? Collectonian (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Can you see anything else? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 02:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For now, just the need for a copyedit but I haven't had time to go through the other sections. Also, the question I asked about Emma's picture - why a newer one instead of an ep 1 one? Collectonian (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I screen grabbed one from the first episode today. I just need to upload and rationale it. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For now, the only thing left that I have seen is the need for a copyedit, and the stuff already listed by other folks. :) Collectonian (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. the League of Copyeditors is backlogged all the way to Jan 2006 though. I think everyone else's comments are addressed, too now! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 01:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I know...I've had a request in for months. Maybe look through the list of copyeditors and contact some personally to see if any would be willing to work on it. That's how I ogt my last copyedit done. User:Scartol is one I've worked with before who is very good and according to his user page, he is taking requests at the moment. :) Collectonian (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try him out. Thanks! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) edit

Hi Matthew, a big one to review! Some comments...

I think when I checked earlier you had one dead link...
"131 episodes " why in bold? and I assume one has been made and not been aired since the infobox says 132 episodes.
"Inspired by the original Star Trek science-fiction television series, which had spawned Star Trek: The Next Generation in 1989)," rogue closing parenthesis...
"1979-1992" use the en-dash here.
"girls' and boys' " why italics?

That's my starting offer, more after lunch... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main roles has eight paragraphs, six of which are really too short. Consider merging and keeping the prose flowing.
Syndicated repeats section needs scanning for numbers which need to be written out as words.
Expand E/I - I didn't have a clue - on its first use.
DVD releases, season six, date format not the same, why? And no citations.
"including an interview with Kevin Smith, Interview with Kevin Smith" hmm!
Full stop missing before [151].
Page ranges in the citations need en-dash, not hyphen or em-dash.

That's about it on a first scan through for me. Let me know if I can help further. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done

Comments from Scartol edit

I've mostly done copyediting, since it looks like other folks have put in plenty of work on the larger content issues. (And, having never seen the show – or even hearing about it before today – I have little to add, heh.) Still, I have some more general questions and comments:

Do we really need the last paragraph in the lead? It seems oddly specific. (Why not have info on the other seasons, or – better – remove it altogether?)

Most of the "Executive producers, script-writers and directors" section consists of prose lists. Can info be added about why these organizations support the show, or what these people do specifically for it? At least tell us the time frames for their involvement. (For example: "Aaron Martin has written X episodes, including the X-award-winning "Episode Name"...)

The thread is on-going as of 2008, and Stohn still participates, even though the series is into its seventh season. Is this really so notable? Seems like an odd thing to include here.

With the exception of the "one rule" tidbit at the end, the entire "Episode format" section is strikingly similar to every other television drama ever, isn't it? Do we really need this section?

Can we get the titles of songs used in the "Jagged Little Pill" episode and the Weddings episode?

The set used for the cafeteria is "purposefully... We should attribute this quote to someone.

The set is also used to feed the cast and crew. What does this mean? Do the cast and crew eat the set?

For future reference: Except in the case of rare exceptions, you don't need to put the citation in the middle of the sentence.

The third paragraph in "Main roles" is another list. Is this information really necessary? How about picking three of the most prominent characters, and discussing their roles and the actors who play them in greater depth?

I feel that the intricate details about characters coming and going due to comas and joining the military are too complicated. Maybe just summarize in one or two sentences, explaining that several actors came and went over time, or highlight 2-3 of the most important changes.

In "Guest roles", do we really need the names of every single person who was in the reunion? Again, better to pick 3-4 and say "a number of cast members from earlier shows returned..." then discuss the most notable returning actors.

Smith was supposed to play the part of Caitlin's friend in the pilot episode... of D:TNG? I'm not clear on why this material is relevant to this article. Maybe just summarize the first paragraph in a sentence or two, and focus on his connection to the D:TNG show?

I don't feel that the names used in French Canada and France are different enough to merit a distinction here.

I wonder how badly we need the "table showing the premiere and finale dates of all seasons in Canada and America". Although very thorough and detailed, it feels like filler to me.

Am I supposed to know what "strip repeats" are? Could we get a brief explanation?

I propose that the "Syndicated repeats" and "Online distribution" sections be combined (since they're short and related) into a section called something like "Post-broadcast distribution". (And again, I feel that the specific detail about what night the syndicated repeats air is excessive.)

I don't feel that the "virtual school" info really belongs in the "Criticism" section. Maybe "Online content"? (See below.)

The N had problems with episodes in seasons two and three... The phrasing "had problems" is worrisome. Describe their objections more succinctly. ("The N objected to episodes..." perhaps? I didn't want to change it without knowing more info about the objections.)

An episode from a later season depicted a character allowing herself to be filmed topless by another student at a party, who later circulated the clip on the Internet without her permission. Why is this included in "Criticism"? The other elements in this paragraph discuss popular and critical reaction to the show, but this only describes an episode.

It makes no sense to say the show was criticized for its "lack of characters with ethnic backgrounds", since every human being has an ethnic background. I changed it to "lack of ethnic diversity". Just FYI for the future.

I suggest combining the "Podcast" and "Web series" sections into "Online content".

Why are the notes in a box? I'd much rather see them as a normal part of the article, like every other page.

I hope this helps! These questions and suggestions are for you to accept or change or reject or whatever; no need to tick them off or get my approval on the follow-up.

Good luck with the article. Please let me know if you have any questions. – Scartol • Tok 01:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]