Wikipedia:Peer review/Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation/archive2

Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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.
How I haven't been to this page, once an FA target of mine, in quite some time. And with my new Bellflower obsession on the rise, I haven't even got the time any more. I'll try to see if I can improve it with whatever comments you can provide with below. This time, I'll make it a GA at most.

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This article has a couple of big problems and some smaller ones. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

I agree with whoever added the "too long" tag above the plot synopsis. I wonder also about the source of the synopsis. If this is your personal description of the plot, it might be regarded as personal research. It's doubtful that a professional reviewer would describe the plot in this much detail. Please see WP:NOR.

You'll have a hard time justifying the use of three fair-use images in this article. I see that one is flagged for deletion, and I doubt that more than one will survive scrutiny. Mr suggestion would be to use only the one in the infobox.

The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated. I ran a script to unlink the dates in this article. Please see WP:UNLINKDATES for the recent changes to the guidelines.

I'd recommend deleting the word "unexpectedly" from the phrase, "before disappearing unexpectedly from the box-office charts". If you leave it in, it needs a source.

In the "Release and reception" section, it's not clear what the phrase "wide break" means. Does that mean the movie's rise or its fall in the charts?

The link to the Vincent Canby review is dead. You might substitute this one in the citation.

The Maltin citation includes an access date but no url. Should it have an url? If you are citing a book in print, the print version would have no access date.

Citations 7 and 8 lack urls.

If you have questions about any of these comments, please ask. I'll keep a watch on this peer review page. Finetooth (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]