The Boys from Baghdad High 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 August 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've just created this article and I would like to take it all the way to FA status. But let's concentrating on working on GA first :)
Any suggestions or comments you have are much appreciated.
Thanks, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Will do Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. One of my concerns, which I should have put above I guess, is whether or not the article needs a cast section and a plot section (though as a non-fiction piece, would it be called plot?) The article assessment from WP:FILM says so, but I'm not too sure. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
- There seems to be too much empahsis in the lead on the producers etc. (the second paragraph) compared to the amount of text in the article itself WP:WEIGHT
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
- I think the direct quotes from reviews in the lead need to be cited - see WP:LEAD and WP:MOSQUOTE
- I do think a "Summary" section (plot) would be useful. Agree that calling it "Plot" seems odd though.
- Also think a Cast section would help.
- There are a few typos I saw - I read for comprehension, not proofreading. Here is a rough sentence When the documentary aired in the UK, overnight viewing figures showed that it was watched by 600,000 viewers, and by 3% of the total television audience.[27] I would say something like ... 600,000 viewers, which was 3 percent ... You can ask for a copyedit at WP:PRV
- I do not review film GAs, but this seems pretty good for GA to me - well cited, mostly well written.
- There were a few places that seem to be needlessly repetitious, alhtough they may be for emphasis - the camera may be taken as a sign the owner is a terrorist, for example.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)