Wikipedia:Peer review/Last of the Summer Wine/archive3
Last of the Summer Wine edit
- 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 June 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've improved it as much as I know how and want opinions on how to improve the article to get it up to FA status.
Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Driveby note: Just in case you get no major replies here, I'll read over the article again when AnnaFrance has finished her copyedit pass. Making FA-quality prose suggestions is kind of hard to do in a peer review, and it's often easier to just do the copyedits yourself (myself) for the late finetunings. It will just take longer as I am not always in the mood to copyedit or may be busy otherwise. – sgeureka t•c 17:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: This is an excellent encyclopedia article – very informative and comprehensive, sufficiently detached from its subject to feel authoritative. There are some prose weaknesses which I will point up, although it seems that a copyedit is taking place concurrent with this review, so some of these problems might be resolved in that process.
- In the lead, for consistency "twenty-five" should be numeric
- Also in lead, there is an awkward repetition of "numerous" in the third paragraph
- In the History and development section, the BBC's hatred of the title, and the cast's worries about it, do not seem to be directly cited
- In the Filming section the statement "The amount of location work increased as the cast began to age…" seems a non sequitur. In fact, the entire sentence is a bit puzzling.
- Why is Michael Bates described as the "veteran" comedy actor? He was about 50 at the time, same as Sallis and years younger than Owen.
- The sub-heading "Plot" isn’t really appropriate to describe a multi-series comedy show. It’s the general setting of the series that is being described here. I can't off-hand come up with a word or phrase that could replace "Plot", but I’m sure one exists.
- Changed to "Scenario" based on wording from FA article Only Fools and Horses. Redfarmer (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- In the short preamble to the "Episodes" section there is a sentence: "Each series of episodes has between six and twelve episodes", which is clumsy. In fact, the word "episod" occurs five times in this short preamble.
- Repetition is even more evident in the Specials section, where the word special or specials occurs eleven times. The section also contains the awkward sentence: "Specials may constitute the only new episodes in the years without an order for a new series, which often happened…" etc etc. This point could be stated more briefly and more clearly.
- In the Documentaries section you use the term "special" again.
- In the Reception section you need to say 18.6 per cent, not just 18.6.
- I’m confused by the conflicting messages in the second para of this section, which appears to say that on the one hand the Radio Times readers hate the show and the BBC want to cancel it, on the other hand it's wildly popular with the viewers. Perhaps these separate points need presenting in a different way.
I believe that, subject to copyediting and fine tuning, the article will be a worthy FA candidate, and I look forward to seeing it there. Brianboulton (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
AnnaFrance comments Thanks Brianboulton! Some great catches there. I believe I've taken care of the copyedit points you've mentioned, including the incredibly repetitive repetitions. --AnnaFrance (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)