Wikipedia:Peer review/Trapped in the Closet (South Park)/archive1

Trapped in the Closet (South Park)

I've done some serious changes to the article lately, but it still need some work to get a good article status, what do you think? Michaelas10 (T|C) 16:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Lead needs work regarding this as the episode that got scientologists angry. Wiki-newbie 17:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Michaelas10 (T|C) 17:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Two Part Review, Part one, an in depth report on the GA review, and then a comparison to the Featured article Criteria:

GA review:

1. Pass; Lead section could still be improved and betterr cited
2. Solid Pass; problems here
3. Solid Pass
4. Weak Pass; would have appreciated to see more references
5. Stable; No problems whatsoever
6. Pass, plenty of images

FA Criteria:

1. A) No, this will come with time

B) Yes, this was what most impressive in the Ga review

C) BIG GAPING HOLE, when the prose is re-written to be improved, this will be an evident flaw

D) For FA standards, this should be improved

E) Yes, the article is stable

1. A) again, this needs to be improved

B) Yes

C) Yes

1. Yes
2. No Way; needs more info

Other Comments:

• Divide the headers into sub sections
• MORE INFORMATION PLEASE!!! This article has 5 Sections, of which only 2 are actually part of the article.
• Even of those 2 sections, only one of them is without a spoiler tag
• This is far, far, far away from FA status

--Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 18:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what section should I write, sections like "trivia", "quotes" and "crew" would make the article listy and non-comprehensive, while a "response" section would be very difficult to write as the most of it is already included in the lead. What should I do? Michaelas10 (T|C) 17:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I poked around and found This, which tells you how to structure a TV show article. Hope it Helps, Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 00:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's for television shows, not episodes. The television episodes WikiProject does give ideas for extra sections but I can't make both of them due to lack of online information and lack of examples. Michaelas10 (T|C) 10:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not that into TV articles, but here's the guide the article to follow, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television_episodes#Structure_of_an_episode_article

As I already said, I can't make both of the extra sections due to lack of online information and lack of examples. Michaelas10 (T|C) 15:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry then, If you can't meet the wikiproject standards, there's no hope of it being an FA. The article lacks actual content, and I am debating if wether to take your commen seriously and ask for a GA review because when the topic is to narrow to be a FA, the standards are stricter. This isn't ment to be rude, but it's fact. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 02:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any problem, they did say 'Omit if none exists.' Michaelas10 (T|C) 08:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a HUGE PROBLEM

I didn't find any sources for a production details section and the episode doesn't have much of significance to the series, there is no major plot change or anything like that. Michaelas10 (T|C) 20:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Automated review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
• Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

• Also, the second paragraph in the intro should be cited, but adding the template causes the paragraphs to run together. What I am saying is there's no chance it could be a FA unless you add information. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 20:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)