Wikipedia:Peer review/Treehouse of Horror V/archive3
Treehouse of Horror V edit
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was failing a WP:FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Treehouse of Horror V) which User:Bole2 withdrew.
Thanks, The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you please add your feddback from the FAC here. Apprently I can't do it myself. Buc (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- You can't copy and paste the contents of one page to another Buc, that's what you can't do. It contravenes GFDL. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: While there is a lot of information here, it could be better organized and written. Here are some more specific suggestions that I hope help:
- I always look at a FAC as a very detailed peer review and think that you should take all of the comments seriously and make sure they are addressed. I will not address specific points already brought up in the FAC except to say that I agree with almost all of them.
- In the FAC, use the specific examples cited as inidicative of possible wider problems - i.e. look at the whole article and make sure there are not other examples of the same problem in other sections.
- I would get a copyedit from someone else (a fresh pair of eyes) to address the writing issues - the article as written tends to have choppy, short sentences that do not flow well, and short paragraphs, which are also a problem.
- There are also still some places that make little or no sense - one way to catch those yourself is to print out the article and read it out loud. One example from the Receptions section: James Earl Jones's guest appearance in this episode, as well as in "Treehouse of Horror" and "Das Bus", was listed seventh on IGN's "Top 25 Simpsons Guest Appearances" list.[21] Matt Groening said that this line is among his favorite lines in the show.[22] What line is Groening's favorite?
- Make sure the sentences in paragraphs go together logically - for example in the reception section, I have no idea what the connection between these two sentences is: Alf Clausen's musical score for this episode received an Emmy Award nomination for "Outstanding Dramatic Underscore - Series" in 1995.[20] The authors of the book I Can't Believe It's a Bigger and Better Updated Unofficial Simpsons Guide, Warren Martyn and Adrian Wood called it "Another fine entry to the Treehouse canon".[1]
- I would look at the Lead and make sure it summarizes the most important points of the article - things to consider adding are the parody of The Shining, perhaps the fact that the episode had an Emmy nomination - see WP:LEAD
- I would also look at WP:IN-U and make sure the plot is written from an out of universe perspective.
- I think for every article on a tv show it is helpful to have a paragraph on background that puts the episode into perspective - here I would provide a very brief description of the Simpsons itself and put more information on the place of this epsiode within the whole Treehouse of Horror series. See WP:PCR
- I would also look at the Treehouse of Horror (series) article which make some referenced claims for this episode and make sure they are all in here.
- Final comment - despite saying I would try not to repeat what is in the FAC, I do strongly agree that to reach FA status the article needs to follow WP:RS - why should the reader care what a college newspaper reviewer or blogger (even one with a spiffy website) thinks of the episode? What makes these reliable critical sources? For a well known series like the Simpsons and show like this, there should be more than enough mainstream criticism that sources like these can be discarded - get thee to a library ;-)