Parents Television Council 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 July 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I'd like to nominate this article for GA status and have some suggestions on how to improve this article, which I've been working on for about a year now.
Thanks, Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
These are my running comments as I read through the article.
- Your lead is very strong, but watch for weasel words. "The PTC has generated the vast majority of complaints over perceived indecent television content." I know you don't want to get too specific in a lead, which is why the previous sentence "with the PTC succeeding on several occasions" is ok, but this one is pretty easily avoidable.
- As this is an activist organization, I'd like to see a little bit more history before the publications part of the article. It provides a little context and also follows up better on your lead than going into more detailed content. I know there might not be a whole lot out there -- it may be appropriate to take what you can find and just put it straight into the lead.
- Very well done with the sourcing. I havn't critically evaluated them, but a once over indicates that they're pretty good and well used throughout the article.
- I don't know how much you can do about it, but the "Best and Worst Shows" section is really really heavily wikified and its a little imposing to read.
- The Foundation section might qualify as the history section I was looking for earlier. Should it be called Founding, by the way?
- Its not quite clear with the sourcing is for the graph in the FCC Complaints section. Using "# Complaints Received" in the legend could be better written. I think its a little dubious to hve the complaints and the associated fines on the same graph anyway...I'd recommend two separate linegraphs next to each other.
- Activism should probably come after Viewpoints and Positions.
- At this point, the article is starting to feel like its running long. Part of the problem seems to be that the article reads like a series of text heavy, detailed lists next to each other instead of a cohesive explanatory text. This is a hard problem to fix, but one that is really important for a good article.
- Try to keep events when talking about their activism chronological. Mostly I say this because it helps to keep the narrative logical.
I've got this page on watch, let me know if you need anything else. EagleFalconn (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- So far, I've put the foundation section at the beginning and removed "vast". I also cleaned up the cable choice section. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)