Wikipedia:Peer review/Today (Australian TV program)/archive1

Today (Australian TV program)

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive feedback from other Wikipedia users.

Firstly, because I believe this article deserves some better attention and just basically needs improving. Secondly, to see if my edits (current and future) of the Today (Australian TV program) article could perhaps make this article become a Wikipedia:Good articles or a Wikipedia:Featured articles. I would also like to receive posts from others, on what they think about the article, what needs improving and change, and also what content is good to stay.

Thanks, Tjkirk 11:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's deffinitely not FA material yet. It's clear for grammar, some copy-editing would be nice. More inline citations and expanding and/or merging of the shorter sections will be required. Otherwise, the page seems stable, though the images may need checking out (can't help with that, not an expert on the subject), neutrality and broadness also seem to be covered, and that's about it. Mind you, I'm not at all a frequent reviewer, but those are my thoughts. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 13:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

put the refs after the periods, not before
it's 25th anniversary; However, it's rival Sunrise - remove the '; it's means "it is", its means "belongs to it"
The show also has regular daily Poll Questions and Hot Topic segments, which is a chance for viewers to send in emails, sms, and log onto the website and post their opinions. - wikilink or explain "sms", and for that matter explain more about this - does the show respond to viewers on the air in real time as each post or email is received, does it gather feedback over a dayrespond all at once on the next day, does it choose what to respond to, does it only respond to a few?
Why did Liebmann leave then return? That seems interesting enough to explain - more money, did he want to do more news and less fluff, did he not think the show would be successful?
"retire from the stresses of breakfast television" - breakfast television doesn't seem like it would be that stressful, it's not Fear Factor - want to rephrase? If he moved to a different show, specify; if he retired completely, specify that.
"Following her court case against Network Ten" - whoah - that's again something interesting that should be explained
"comments from the media and viewers that she should be sacked" - why? Because she laughed nervously? Specify.
"the female co-hosting duties" - does it say somewhere that there have to be one male and one female co-host?
in the early nineties, hosted by Tracy Grimshaw. Grimshaw was followed by Tara Brown - give some specific dates, please
due to budget cuts by the Nine Network, Today on Saturday was cancelled. - cite this important fact: who says that it was budget cuts, and not poor ratings, or some other reason?
"25th Anniversary" section - seems like a lot of space given to one show. Wasn't there a 20th, 15th, 10th anniversary show as well?
Many sections seem like lists of names, rather than just text. Understandably we need a few lists of names, but not this much. Flesh out with actual prose, please.
Competition - is Sunrise really the only competitor? What do the other channels air at this time?
While, in Melbourne alone ; Even though, the name - commas misplaced
In the last three years, - give specific years, we don't know if this will be magically corrected every January 1 from now on.
streetside studio - what is this?
Remove most or all of the "see also" section, they're better served by existing inline wikilinks in the appropriate sections. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]