This line bugs me: "In the original draft, there were two sentences that Keeler felt illustrated this point even better and would have made all of the difference in the episode. However, they were cut for time." It is cited, but the cite is to the DVD commentary which, of course, is vapor to anyone who does not own the DVD set. I would like to know what those "two sentences" were, if they were so crucial to the structure of the episode. Tantalizing the reader like this is foul play. Also, the last paragraph of the article, "Legacy", is awkwardly written and needs work. And finally, though the negative reaction to the episode is well detailed, would it really hurt so much to just come out and truthfully say that the episode is pure crap? (wink wink) --
Captain Infinity (
talk)
16:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Actually, Keeler doesn't say what the two lines were. He says they would have made all the difference, but then says he can't remember what the were. --
Scorpion042218:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic
javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at
Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on
WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at
Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on
WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?] -- Misperception from the automated peer review, the Lead/Intro is of a sufficient length.
Cirt (
talk)
09:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Per
Wikipedia:Context and
Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as
January 15,
2006.[?] -- I went and looked through the article, could not find any instances of full-dates that were not wikilinked per
WP:MOSDATE, but it is possible I may have missed one, perhaps as a citation in the References section.
Cirt (
talk)
09:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
As per
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?] -- I believe this refers to the one instance in the Plot section, Seymour Skinner prepares to celebrate his 20th anniversary as school principal. - and in that particular instance I think the use of "20th" is appropriate.
Cirt (
talk)
09:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, Can't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded. -- Fixed one instance of this, the other is the title of a book.
Cirt (
talk)
09:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
This line bugs me: "In the original draft, there were two sentences that Keeler felt illustrated this point even better and would have made all of the difference in the episode. However, they were cut for time." It is cited, but the cite is to the DVD commentary which, of course, is vapor to anyone who does not own the DVD set. I would like to know what those "two sentences" were, if they were so crucial to the structure of the episode. Tantalizing the reader like this is foul play. Also, the last paragraph of the article, "Legacy", is awkwardly written and needs work. And finally, though the negative reaction to the episode is well detailed, would it really hurt so much to just come out and truthfully say that the episode is pure crap? (wink wink) --
Captain Infinity (
talk)
16:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Actually, Keeler doesn't say what the two lines were. He says they would have made all the difference, but then says he can't remember what the were. --
Scorpion042218:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic
javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at
Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on
WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at
Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on
WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?] -- Misperception from the automated peer review, the Lead/Intro is of a sufficient length.
Cirt (
talk)
09:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Per
Wikipedia:Context and
Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as
January 15,
2006.[?] -- I went and looked through the article, could not find any instances of full-dates that were not wikilinked per
WP:MOSDATE, but it is possible I may have missed one, perhaps as a citation in the References section.
Cirt (
talk)
09:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
As per
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?] -- I believe this refers to the one instance in the Plot section, Seymour Skinner prepares to celebrate his 20th anniversary as school principal. - and in that particular instance I think the use of "20th" is appropriate.
Cirt (
talk)
09:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, Can't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded. -- Fixed one instance of this, the other is the title of a book.
Cirt (
talk)
09:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply