Wikipedia:Peer review/Good Christian Fun/archive1
Good Christian Fun[edit]
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I have run out of ideas for improving the article and I would like input from another editor. I think some of the prose is a little clunky and I would appreciate input on how to make the prose flow together in a more natural way. I'm also not sure if the final paragraph containing reception or praise for the show is good or not. Should the quotes be shortened or paraphrased? Are there general themes of praise or criticism throughout the sources that could be compared or contrasted?
Thanks, TipsyElephant (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Comments from Z1720[edit]
- I suggest putting comments about the podcast in a "Reception" section.
- Try to find more sources for the article using Google News, sources at WP:RS/P and WP:LIBRARY.
I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments Z1720, this is the first peer review I've gone through. Unfortunately I think I've found most of the avilable sources, but I'll do a more thorough search to see if I missed anything. I think the current sources are at least enough to demonstrate notability. If I can't find more sources, would a small article like this ever be able to pass a GA review? Or does the article need more content to ever pass a review like that? I've added a section heading for the reception. Are there any obvious MOS guidelines that I've negelected to adhere to? Or any obvious mistakes I've made that I should correct? Do you have any other recommendations for improving the article? TipsyElephant (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if my original ping went through because I forgot to sign so I'll ping you again @Z1720:. If you just didn't have the time to respond there's no rush, and if you just didn't want to reply there's of course no obligation to. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- @TipsyElephant: It's possible for short articles to pass GAN, but it is harder. I'm not sure that information about specific episodes (most of the last paragraph in Background) is necessary, as it causes the reader to wonder why these episodes are mentioned over others. Instead, I think there should be general statements about the categories of content the podcast covers (Christian pop media, TV shows, book series, etc.) and how they choose the topics they cover. Z1720 (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- I haven't had much time to work on this lately. Hopefully I'll get to it sometime this coming week. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Z1720: I think I've done a decent job of smoothing out the prose throughout the Background section. I also think I've done a decent job of changing the third paragraph from a bunch of random facts about specific episodes to something with a little more narrative flow that better explains how or why topics and guests are chosen on the show. Any additional thoughts? Do you think I should close the review at this time? TipsyElephant (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think I need to work on the third paragraph a little more to smooth things out, but once I've done that do you think this would stand a chance at a GAN. Or would you suggest that I find a different topic with more sources to pursue my first GAN? TipsyElephant (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- @TipsyElephant: It's possible for short articles to pass GAN, but it is harder. I'm not sure that information about specific episodes (most of the last paragraph in Background) is necessary, as it causes the reader to wonder why these episodes are mentioned over others. Instead, I think there should be general statements about the categories of content the podcast covers (Christian pop media, TV shows, book series, etc.) and how they choose the topics they cover. Z1720 (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)