Wikipedia:Peer review/24 (TV series)/archive2

24 (TV series)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in improving this from good to featured article status and would like feedback on the article.`

Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gabriel Yuji

A few suggestions that you might like to ponder:

I'll not list all them and I cannot but you may check for repeated links. You can only link an article twice (once in the lead, once in the body). Sutherland stands out as his name is linked twice just in the infobox and there is ten more (one in the lead, nine in the body). Another major one is Jack Bauer that is linked four times in the body (five if we count the image).
You don't need to repeat every person's name several times; you can call them just by the last name. "Joel Surnow" and "Robert Cochran", for example, are written seven times each, while "Kiefer Sutherland" is repeated more than twenty times.
Is the existence of 24: Live Another Day controversial? Per WP:LEADCITE you don't need to source it in the lead if it is not. The same goes for the rest of the sourced material in the lead.
You might reorder the lead a bit; it starts with the premise and then goes to airdates, then in the second paragraph it returns to the plot.
The second paragraph uses an untied "him"; it probably refers to Bauer but you may reword it. Actually, if you group the part about the plot in the start of the first paragraph into it... you won't need to.
Although I understand it is obviously important inside the series, I wonder if it's not too WP:IN-U to add the hour which each season starts.
Is it important to the reader to know that Surnow and Cochran's first discussions were over the phone and then on IHOP?
"24 episodes in a season, with each episode lasting an hour" – it's something that can be paraphrased, isn't it? I mean, quotes should be used to remark unique commentaries that otherwise would be difficult to be replicate. It's not the case here.
In fact, "This idea started ... 'race against the clock'" repeats the first paragraph of "Conception". Is it necessary?
"As a result of the timing nature of the series, a number of visual cues were projected onto the screen." – unsourced.
"Series conclusion" is a bit inflated with quotes; I guess most of them could paraphrased, focusing on why the series was cancelled ("we always wanted 24 to finish on a high note") and its impact ("it has redefined the drama genre and created one of the most admired action icons in television history") rather than sentimental stuff ("I will never be able to fully express my appreciation", "it is the loyal worldwide fan base that made it possible for me", "I echo his sentiments of gratitude", etc).
"'We are extremely ... and unforgettable eight days" – missing a quote mark in the end of the sentence.
"said that the film will be a two-hour representation of a twenty-four-hour time frame" and then "It's going to be a two-hour representation of a 24 hour day" – repetitive.
Is it important to the reader to know that his interview was given at a BAFTA event?
"an involvement ending with Scott's death in August 2012." – although it's obvious he could not continue working after his death, I guess anyway it needs a source for his death.
Overall, the section "Feature film development" seems a bit sparse. In addition to being composed mainly by short paragraphs, it follows a "In X date, it happended" format.
"The series is set ... back to 11:00 a.m." Is everything here presented through the plot to not require a secondary- or tertiary-party source?
Again, is it important to know what he said was said at a "Q&A session held in Los Angeles"?
"Sutherland ... is the only actor to appear in all of the show's 204 episodes and the television film, 24: Redemption" – needs a source(?)
"while Mary Lynn Rajskub, who plays Chloe O'Brian, has appeared in the last seven seasons." – needs a source(?)
"with Time stating that the show took" – Time didn't say that, James Poniewozik did.
Homeland,24 executive producer – space needed
"describing it as 'stunning - everyone...'" – the source uses a period. I'm not sure you can change it but if you can at least you should be consistent on the use of WP:DASH.
"... and real, even." – missing a quote mark in the article.
"it's fourth season" – its.
"(though mistakenly quoted it as an advertisement for the second season" – parenthesis opened but not closed
"They could be next door." should be 'They could be next door.' as it's a quote inside a quote, per MOS:QUOTEMARKS
Actually, the are too many paragraphs on torture and Islamophobia. I mean, it's important to point the critics but Clinton, Scalia, Garofalo, Aghdashloo, and Gordon opinions on it could be trimmed. Of course it's important to show it impacts and the show's productor response but the reader doesn't need to know what Clinton or Scalia said, but that they said. The same goes for Garofalo and Aghdashloo. And although Gordon's should gain more emphasis than the others, it's almost a full transcription. For example, "I actually do have regrets about one particular moment, which had more to do with the promotion of the show." is something that could be easily removed without loss.
You can call LA Times, BuddyTV and NY Times reviewers by their names.
The entire prose in "Ratings" is unsourced(?)
Well, I'm not sure "24 was nominated for and won several other television awards including the Emmy Awards, Golden Globe Awards, and Screen Actors Guild Awards." can be unsourced but below there are sources for it. However, "It is one of only four TV series (along with NYPD Blue, The West Wing and Breaking Bad) ever to have won the Emmy Award, the Golden Globe and the Satellite Award for Best Drama Series." must have a source.
"Distribution" is a bit sparsed. It stars with "24 was distributed across the globe" but then with have nothing else supporting this. Then it talks about the UK TV distribution. We have a separate paragraph discussing the DVDs in the UK (which could be grouped with the former paragraph) and the US DVDs too. Then we go onto a well-detailed description of a special edition of the first season. But there's no such description for other seasons DVDs; okay, maybe there isn't special editions every season but what about the regular ones? Then we go to the film—albeit unsourced—to finally return to Blu-Ray information. Then, we have two separate one-sentence paragraphs to talk about the same subject—digital distribution. And, Region 2 and 4 releases are mostly unsourced.

I hope it helps a bit, Steven Zhang. It's a shame you had no commentaries on the last PR and that this one has been almost a month without any input. Regards, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]