Wikipedia:Peer review/Carnivàle/archive1

Carnivàle

I wish to take Carnivàle, List of Carnivàle episodes, Characters of Carnivàle and Mythology of Carnivàle to Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates (making it the first TV show to possibly achieve this ranking) as soon as the GAC subarticles have successfully passed their candidacy. Copyedits are always welcome, especially for grammar where my judgement as a non-native speaker may not always be optimal. I have already addressed some recent anon comments that suggested clarity improvements for Mythology of Carnivàle, but I wonder now if someone (who is possibly not so familiar with the show) may see further things to improve that I may have grown blind to notice over the last few months of extensive wiki-editing. Thanks for any comments, – sgeureka ^t•c 17:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference consistency. I know this is likely to be quite dull but I notice that some footnotes (in Mythology of Carnivàle but possibly elsewhere also) with quotes use the cite episode template and some just give a link to the episode in brackets. Since these links are now redirects to the episode list I think the references definitely need to be made consistent and use the cite episode template. I'll help out changing this if I have time.--Opark 77 23:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did this on purpose to not blow the ref sections more than they already are in size. When an action or series of events is important, the full episode information is provided. If I sourced directly from a quote, naming the episode is IMO just a gimmick and the reader will find exact production details behind the episode link. If there is a set of quotes from the same episode, I used the full episode information instead of linking to the Episode list repeatedly. But I see no harm in adding the full {{cite episode}} information again as my way may in fact appear random. – sgeureka ^t•c 01:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A copy edit will be needed before FAC and I will happily provide an invested pass. I think a request at the league of copyeditors is also worthwhile. However, perhaps an A-class assessment from WP:TV would circumvent the need for this. I can provide this but perhaps someone less involved should be requested first. I'd request the copy edit now and wait for the GA candidacys to close and then request reassessment if passed.--Opark 77 23:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still have some more sourced ideas that may enrichen Characters of Carnivàle, and tons of third-party material for Mythology of Carnivàle#Reception, media interpretation and legacy trying to make sense of the show (which I will probably not add as 30 people saying they didn't get the meaning of the show is not necessarily better than 10 people saying the same.) My experience with the Copyeditors League with Carnivàle is that for the time it takes them to get to an article, it has minimal results (this is not a complain!), but maybe your copyedit was just to darn good to begin with. I am constantly doing minor passes here and there, but my final-final pass will be based on what this peer review will bring up. Thank you for your comments and work on the articles. – sgeureka ^t•c 01:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I have added these ideas now that I had before. I have also copy-edited everything in Characters of Carnivàle a few times except for the short character descriptions that I am still trying to bring in line with List of Carnivàle episodes. This way, WP:SS applies and I wouldn't have to source every character plot detail again. I guess some more copyeditting brings Characters of Carnivàle surprisingly close to WP:FA. – sgeureka ^t•c 02:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2. I have restructured the character article some more and I'm also done with copyediting. I am so pleased with its current state that once it is GA and this topic has achieved FT, I don't see much left to do (except minor copyediting) before taking it to FA. I don't have any current FAC plans for the mythology article though. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]