Wikipedia:Peer review/W.I.T.C.H./archive1

W.I.T.C.H.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to find out what portion is needed to improve it. Over the years, the article got unprofessional, fancruft look. I can't do the task that you suggested by myself alone. So I need someone's help.

Thanks, JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 07:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (Edited 01:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC) )

MCorazao comments:

• My first recommendation would be to look at an article like Superman or Batman and use it as a model. Try to build your article in a similar fashion.
• Most of the article is lists of comic issues and books. But the article is not fundamentally a list article. I would say that, if the lists are considered notable for some reason, they should be moved to their own articles and removed from this one. It would be better for the article to discuss the series as a whole. To the extent that individual issues or books are mentioned, in general they should either be discussed (i.e. say something about the issue), or else not mentioned.
• Aside from the lists of issues and books, the article largely focuses on the storylines. There is some discussion of how the series was created and such but ideally there should be more discussion about this, the popularity of the series, reception from critics if applicable, etc. Look at the Superman article as an example.
• There are almost no citations/references. Each paragraph or item should have at least one inline citation (<ref>).
• The one reference that is provided (http://www.kaaberboel.dk/uk-the-witch-series.htm) is a dead link. Even at that the site itself looks like a self-published site. Ideally the article should use authoritative sources like books, newspapers or news sites, etc. (and preferably secondary sources).
  • Also, when referencing foreign-language sites it is often a good idea to insert a quote from the site translated into English. That makes gives reviewers that don't speak the language a little more confidence that your references are legit.
• Book names should be in italics.
• <ref> tags should generally go at the end of sentences.
• Avoid abbreviating things; make statements plain. For example, "Lene Kaaberbøl has written nine books taking place in the W.I.T.C.H. universe, published 2002-2003" should be "Lene Kaaberbøl has written nine books taking place in the W.I.T.C.H. universe, which were published in 2002 and 2003" (or something similar).
• The Manga and Welcome sections are extremely short. Sections like this should either be expanded or merged into other sections.

Hope that helps.

--Mcorazao (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. A comment on the "plot holes" question: The first question, of course, is what is the basis for calling these "plot holes". If the basis for calling these plot holes is that some editor noticed an inconsistency then that is original research (i.e. it doesn't matter if these really are plot holes; the labeling of them as such must be based on the observations of an authoritative source). In general I would tend to argue that such a section is inappropriate anyway. If some recognized critics have argued that there are plot holes it is probably best to simply include these criticisms as part of a section discussing critical reception. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like trivial plot holes. Anyway, I removed it.