Wikipedia:Peer review/Firefly (TV series)/archive1

Firefly (TV series)[edit]

Looking for some ideas to help promote this article to FA status. Tuvas 19:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 14:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. All images need Fair use rationale. There are too many one sentence or very short paragraphs, many can probably be merged. Ex: Signature show elements can really be one large paragraph instead of three tiny ones. Shouldn't the Synopsis include Simon and River being chased by the Alliance since that was a significant part of the show? The Cast section sometimes gets into original research by anaylizing the characters, this analiysis should be referenced or rewritten. I really would like to see Original airing rewritten into prose and better referencing. The article is missing critical reception information. In DVD release Technical specifications and Features are not encyclopedic and should be removed. Good luck Medvedenko 06:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Have added the fair use rationale, and tightened up some paragraphs. Added to the synopsis and tried to trim out some OR in Cast but it still needs work. On some of them, I cited the episode where a particular trait was revealed, is that okay? Redid Original Airing, but it still needs refs. Coincidentally I had added critical reception, must have been after you'd seen it. Removed tech specs and features from DVD. -plange 21:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its much improved, still needs a thorough copyedit though. Medvedenko 03:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just went through whole article and corrected sentence structure, grammar, etc. I also added actor's names when character is first mentioned. -plange 04:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article. A few thoughts:

If possible, flesh out the Themes section a bit more - it seems a bit weak at the moment.
The characters section seems a bit overfull - all it really needs is a one or two line summary of the character, with everything else on the page for that character. e.g. the remark about Malcolm Reynolds being #18 in TV Guide's Greatest SciFi legends should only be present on Malcolm Reynolds, not this page.
It may be worth putting a one- or two-sentance summary for each of the episodes in the episodes table, similar to how the characters section is done.
The soundtrack "see also" link is to a redirect, and should probably be a "main article" link.
"In its October 3 review, Salon.com stated: ..." - what year? Also, the date wants to be wikilinked (e.g. October 3 2002). In the same section, you've got a review comment which isn't in a box, unlike all the others.
Consider removing the external links from within the page, confining them to the end of the page. They're especially noticable in the reviews section.
You've got a few citation needed labels around - they need sorting out. (Specifically, at the end of the comics and film sections.)
A pet hate of mine is having IMDB, TV.com and official website links in both the infobox at the top of the page and the External Links section. I tend to prefer having them only in the infobox.
Note that all dates should be in the same form, e.g. 'January 2, 2006' (with appropriate linking). A lot of your references had the date in the format 2006-01-02, which doesn't display too nicely when you're not logged in/have no date preference set (the exception being the 'accessdate' in the cite templates, which requires the date in that format). Also, it's best to use the 'date' section of the cite tags for the full date rather than the 'year' section. (I've just fixed most of those.)

If you have any questions about any of these points, drop me a line on my talk page (I don't watch this page). --Mike Peel 21:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've trimmed down the characters and addressed most of your concerns. Will tackle the rest shortly, thanks! -plange 14:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much phrasing tightening to be done - paragraphs often consist of simple declarative sentences that are not phrased in such a way as to flow into each other, producing a choppy effect. Pairs of sentences like "Settlers and refugees on the outlying worlds have relative freedom from the central government, but lack the amenities of the high-tech civilization that exist on the inner worlds. The captain of the crew of Serenity is Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) and the episode "Serenity" establishes that the Captain and his first mate Zoë (Gina Torres) are veteran "Browncoats" of the Unification War, a failed attempt by the outlying worlds to resist the Alliance's assertion of control." do not flow well at all.
The synopsis sections could better adhere to WP:WAF. Things like "Much of his and his crew's work consists of cargo runs or smuggling." could be changed to something like "Mal describes his work as 'Insert quote here' in a way that would be more informative.
Signature show elements... nothing about the dialogue?
The themes section is trying to come to a point, but reads as a disconnected set of trivia. Back up and use some quotes from Whedon and Minear about the overall theme, and then zoom in to specific examples. Right now it's got too many tangents - Fox's disapproval, Joss's favorite scenes, etc. But right now this feels like facts in search of a section.
Broadcast history is perhaps excessive. I don't think we need to have the episode order for every country the show aired in.
The success of the revival campaigns in getting the movie made should be discussed in the cancellation section.
Music should go after production, as it's an aspect of production.
Reception should go closer to cancellation, as they're related issues (Both being about how the public recieved the show, ultimately)
The reception section is too hagiographic - extended reviewer quotes, Fireflyseason2.com, Serenity Day, and the Stargate shout-out are probably all unnecessary, and only of fannish interest.
Awards, being a list, should be towards the end.
I cannot wrap my head around having the movie, which is clearly the most important spin-off, relegated after the books and comics. I'm not even sure the movie deserves to be called a spin-off - it seems rather more than that, and it seems to me like an expansion of the movie section would be reasonable - things like how it did and what plot threads it picked up on.

Phil Sandifer 14:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More inline references would be nice. References not inline should be renamed further reading, since it's near impossible to verify if they were used and for what facts. Some sections are stub sections and should be expanded (Role-playing game, Videos). There should be no external links in body (transform them into proper inline citations). There seem to be too many quotes, and personally I dislike blockquotes, consider moving some of them to Wikiquote.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk} 16:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]