Wikipedia:Peer review/Phil Hartman/archive2

Phil Hartman[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 February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Will probably try an FAC in a few weeks, so trying to garner as much feedback as possible before —then. Thanks, Gran² 12:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr pda I've reviewed this as I would at FAC. I've also copyedited to fix a number of prose and other minor points (but feel free to change anything back if I've introduced errors).

Things which are fine:

All images have appropriate licences or fair-use rationales.
Image captions which are complete sentences end with periods.
Image placement complies with WP:ACCESS, subjects of images are looking into the page (though in a couple there are people looking in either direction). The Sinbad image could possbily be moved to the left to get the left–right alternation suggested by MOS:IMAGES (though not immediately under the heading of course)
Hartmann's wife is correctly referred to by her given name, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Family members with the same surname
Date formatting is consistent within article body, and citation section.
Article is well-cited, except for filmography section (see comment below)
Article seems comprehensive, though I don't know enough about Hartman to say if there is any significant information lacking.
References are correctly formatted (though see comment below about order of first name and surname).
I've corrected all dash usage (hyphens, ndashes and mdashes)

Things which might need to be changed

the network decided that variety shows were dead—sounds maybe a little too colloquial
He also appeared as kidnapper Randy in the third season finale of 3rd Rock from the Sun, a role written especially for him. He died before filming of the concluding episode could take place.—How many episodes was the third season finale? I would assume one. If so did he actually appear or not?
noted is slightly overused in introducing quotations.
Some people object to references which are not in numerical order (i.e. [7][4] instead of [4][7]). This occurs a number of times throughout the article. If there is not a particular reason for doing so (e.g. the second reference is only a backup), you may wish to consider reordering the references to be in numerical order.
Hartman appeared in a number of voice-over roles. These included appearances on ...—it sounds a bit odd to me to say he appeared in a voice-over role, as he did not literally appear.
For consistency the video games could possibly be put in a table as well.

Things which need attention

The Record (twice), The Times Union, Maxim (twice) currently point to disambiguation pages; they should be piped to the correct article.
The caption Hartman had his first starring in 1995's Houseguest, alongside Sinbad. is missing a word—had his first what?
The film, television, and video game subsections of filmography do not cite any sources. Is there a guideline which says you don't need to?
Current reference 21, 23, 38 (Commentary for Simpsons episodes)—why do you list the authors surname, first name, when for all the other references first name surname is used?
On meeting Clinton in 1993, Hartman remarked "I guess I owe you a few apologies,"[14] adding that he "sometimes [felt] a twinge of guilt about [his Clinton impression]."[13]—If the quotes both come from the same occasion (which is what adding implies), why don't you reference them both to the same source?
Hartman wrote a screenplay for a film entitled Mr. Fix-It in 1986,[11] and wrote the final draft in 1991.—the difference between/reasons for the 1986 and 1991 versions needs to be made more explicit. Why did he produce a final draft in 1991? Or was he working on it the whole time and only completed it in 1991?
The Gasping for Airtime reference (no. 15) needs a page number.
What makes http://www.filmreference.com/ a reliable source?

Hope you find these comments useful. If so you might like to try reviewing an article from the backlog list which is where I found yours. Good luck for the FAC. Dr pda (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! I'll implement these soon enough. As for filmographies, I don't think there's a policy, but convention is that IMDb (and Variety, Yahoo) filmographies cover them, in the external links. Gran² 10:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 01:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)