Wikipedia:Peer review/Kevin and Kell/archive1

Kevin and Kell

This article has recently passed GA, and I want to try to get to FA status. I am not sure which areas need improving, but any help is welcome.

Thanks,

ISD 13:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes while I wait for the caffeine in my system to wear off:

In the reception section, the phrase "Some like it because" is weaselly and doesn't properly attribute the opinion. It's more appropriate to simply launch into who the reviewer is and what that particular reviewer specifically said.
"However, since this review was made in 2004, more diverse characters have been included." - Refuting an argument with a primary source is mildly OR. I'm not sure if this sentence really belongs.
Same section, "Another review for The Offical Time Waster's Guide by a reviewer calling themselves "EUOL"" is both redundant and strikes me as slightly negative against the pseudonym. A quick check on the About Us link would have turned up the name Brandon Sanderson.
An instance of a quote not quite matching the subject of the sentence: 'Zampzon and Daku, discribed Kevin and Kell as, "One of the few anthropomorphic strips that I actually like,"' <- Who is doing the saying here?
The "places of note" section/paragraph can probably be moved into the generic "about" section.
Not to be a WP:FICT snob, and not that it has to do with the article itself, but six sub-articles (one list plus five Dewclaws) is too much.
Snag a copyeditor, I found a couple minor mistakes in the prose (aside from the above).

It's a much better article than most of our webcomics offerings, but it's far from perfect. A lack of quality sources really hurts, but it's good to see an article work with what's out there. Nifboy (talk) 11:24, 5 December 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 19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article in general suffers from too much in universe information. Besides the middle paragraph, the about section is entirely in universe. What is needed is sales figures, readership, information on impact etc. (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)). If the problem is that there are no reliable sources about that, then the problem is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. You can't create a FA if there aren't appropriate sources for a topic. Use all available out of universe information and shorten the in universe information until it is an appropriately small proportion of the article. - Taxman ^Talk 15:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the Megatokyo article thoroughly to see what kinds of information and sources it uses? It is a webcomic FA, and so looking it over may prove useful. -Malkinann (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]