This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd really like to work on bringing this article back up to Good Article status. I've done a little work already, but any suggestions/ideas/advice would be really appreciate. Thanks,
Shoemoney2night (
talk)
09:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. While this is good, it needs some more work to get to FA quality.
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 ><>°° 19:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Here are some more thoughts from a second look:
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Cinemaniac comments: I've been tracking changes to the article that you've been making, and I must say that your contributions have been excellent. I particularly like how you've been able to balance out the positive and negative criticism the show's garnered over the years, as well as your adding of images and your creation of subpages. Not really much I can add to what the other reviewers have already said, but, due to my experience in the GA process, I definitely must stress citing more references, although you appear to already be on that. Other than that, I think you've given the article a vast improvement and I see no reason why it can't pass GA. Heck, the way the article is now, you could probably just skip GA altogether and try for FA status. In any case, if you need any other assistance in this matter, I'd be happy to provide some. Good luck! Regards, Cinemaniac ( talk • contribs • critique) 19:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd really like to work on bringing this article back up to Good Article status. I've done a little work already, but any suggestions/ideas/advice would be really appreciate. Thanks,
Shoemoney2night (
talk)
09:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. While this is good, it needs some more work to get to FA quality.
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 ><>°° 19:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Here are some more thoughts from a second look:
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Cinemaniac comments: I've been tracking changes to the article that you've been making, and I must say that your contributions have been excellent. I particularly like how you've been able to balance out the positive and negative criticism the show's garnered over the years, as well as your adding of images and your creation of subpages. Not really much I can add to what the other reviewers have already said, but, due to my experience in the GA process, I definitely must stress citing more references, although you appear to already be on that. Other than that, I think you've given the article a vast improvement and I see no reason why it can't pass GA. Heck, the way the article is now, you could probably just skip GA altogether and try for FA status. In any case, if you need any other assistance in this matter, I'd be happy to provide some. Good luck! Regards, Cinemaniac ( talk • contribs • critique) 19:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)