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 October 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as a newly-promoted GA, that
User:Cornucopia and I hope to improve to FA status. Note that the article has been extensively revised since the prior peer review.
Also, for those reviewing the article, please treat it like a(n) FAC; i.e. be as harsh and strict as you can be! ;) A "support" or "oppose" would also be good, so we know whether you would support or oppose it at FAC. Thanks. Corn.u.co.pia /
Disc.us.sion05:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)reply
You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
Not sure what would make this NOT a reliable source. It appears to be commercial and I don't see a way to submit content to it.... Am I missing something?
Jclemens (
talk)
04:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.
Ealdgyth -
Talk17:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)reply
So no featured content can ever use a
WP:SELFPUB site, even for noncontroversial statements? See, I follow the policy chain like...
WP:WIAFL references
WP:RS which references
WP:SPS, which is followed by
WP:SELFPUB (both being paragraphs within
WP:V. Looking at that, it would appear that if the (admittedly pretty limiting) conditions of
WP:SELFPUB are met, the source should be acceptable within both
WP:RS and
WP:V. However, I don't doubt that actual current consensus can markedly differ from what is written... does it?
Jclemens (
talk)
17:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Ruhrfisch comments: Here's a review as if it were at FAC, although I do not usually weigh in on TV shows there. Anyway, here are some nitpicky suggestions for improvement.
Should the plot synopses say who the killer was in the Season One arc, or the solution to the bus crash or murder in Season Two?
Still some repetition, for example Plot has Stosh "Piz" Piznarski and Parker Lee are introduced as the respective roommates of Wallace and Mac while the Cast and characters section repeats this as The third season introduced two new series regulars, Parker Lee and Stosh "Piz" Piznarski. I also note this mentions the Mac character before he is described later in the paragraph.
Verb choice in Kyle Gallner acted as "Beaver", ... is a bit odd - perhaps "portrayed" or "appeared as" instead of "acted"?
Rearrange As television scripts paid more, Thomas wrote the television version of the teen detective project before it became a novel as a spec script. to something like As television scripts paid more, Thomas wrote the television version of the teen detective project as a spec script before it became a novel.
So say what happened instead For the third mystery, Thomas had wanted to present a situation where the Wallace and Mac could be fully involved, "key players [with] really interesting stuff to do".[21]
Assistant Location Manager Steven Lee said that the filming locations were decided [chosen?] by the director and by the production designer, Alfred Sole.
Per
WP:MOSQUOTE the ref should follow the quote in things like Sole reportedly "really liked the look and feel of the school" and San Diego State University invited the series with "open arms".
Cornucopia already sufficiently cited this, I believe. Two quotes from the same source in the same sentence should be fine with only one cite, right?
Jclemens (
talk)
03:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)reply
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 October 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as a newly-promoted GA, that
User:Cornucopia and I hope to improve to FA status. Note that the article has been extensively revised since the prior peer review.
Also, for those reviewing the article, please treat it like a(n) FAC; i.e. be as harsh and strict as you can be! ;) A "support" or "oppose" would also be good, so we know whether you would support or oppose it at FAC. Thanks. Corn.u.co.pia /
Disc.us.sion05:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)reply
You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
Not sure what would make this NOT a reliable source. It appears to be commercial and I don't see a way to submit content to it.... Am I missing something?
Jclemens (
talk)
04:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.
Ealdgyth -
Talk17:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)reply
So no featured content can ever use a
WP:SELFPUB site, even for noncontroversial statements? See, I follow the policy chain like...
WP:WIAFL references
WP:RS which references
WP:SPS, which is followed by
WP:SELFPUB (both being paragraphs within
WP:V. Looking at that, it would appear that if the (admittedly pretty limiting) conditions of
WP:SELFPUB are met, the source should be acceptable within both
WP:RS and
WP:V. However, I don't doubt that actual current consensus can markedly differ from what is written... does it?
Jclemens (
talk)
17:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Ruhrfisch comments: Here's a review as if it were at FAC, although I do not usually weigh in on TV shows there. Anyway, here are some nitpicky suggestions for improvement.
Should the plot synopses say who the killer was in the Season One arc, or the solution to the bus crash or murder in Season Two?
Still some repetition, for example Plot has Stosh "Piz" Piznarski and Parker Lee are introduced as the respective roommates of Wallace and Mac while the Cast and characters section repeats this as The third season introduced two new series regulars, Parker Lee and Stosh "Piz" Piznarski. I also note this mentions the Mac character before he is described later in the paragraph.
Verb choice in Kyle Gallner acted as "Beaver", ... is a bit odd - perhaps "portrayed" or "appeared as" instead of "acted"?
Rearrange As television scripts paid more, Thomas wrote the television version of the teen detective project before it became a novel as a spec script. to something like As television scripts paid more, Thomas wrote the television version of the teen detective project as a spec script before it became a novel.
So say what happened instead For the third mystery, Thomas had wanted to present a situation where the Wallace and Mac could be fully involved, "key players [with] really interesting stuff to do".[21]
Assistant Location Manager Steven Lee said that the filming locations were decided [chosen?] by the director and by the production designer, Alfred Sole.
Per
WP:MOSQUOTE the ref should follow the quote in things like Sole reportedly "really liked the look and feel of the school" and San Diego State University invited the series with "open arms".
Cornucopia already sufficiently cited this, I believe. Two quotes from the same source in the same sentence should be fine with only one cite, right?
Jclemens (
talk)
03:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)reply