Wikipedia:Peer review/My Musical/archive2

My Musical

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 it is a good article at present, but can, with some work, make it to FA. I think some specific guidance is needed in a few areas:

How can the lead be improved? Does it need expanding, is it lacking summary, etc?
The GA reviewer suggested a lack of balance existed in the Reception section - if this is true, how so?
Is the article structured correctly?

Any other comments are also veyr welcome! Many thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hey Fritzpoll, some comments from me. Not an area of my expertise but some points that may be brought up at WP:FAC...

The lead is a little on the light side, especially considering the second paragraph is a single sentence...
Not particularly relevant here, but the fair use image has a good rationale for this article but none for its inclusion in Sacred Heart Hospital .
"[1] –" I'd use ",[1] " so remove the dash and place the ref immediately following the comma you insert in place of the dash.
"However, in the style of a traditional Scrubs episode, this is preceded by a cold open." - can you provide a citation for the "style of a traditional scrubs episode" or is this WP:OR?
"singing to her ("All Right"). " - "singing "All Right" to her." would be preferable to me.
Ms. Miller's image caption reads as a fragment to me so it shouldn't have the full stop.
I find the introduction of some of the characters such as the Worthless Peons in Act One to be a little confusing.
" they'll " avoid contractions for FA - they will.
"It had long been a dream in the Scrubs writers' room to do a musical episode. " a little fancrufty...
("Musical hallucinations associated with seizures originating from an intracranial aneurysm...)" in-line citations disallowed in FAC, make it a normal reference.
"Intriguingly, the casting of Stephanie D'Abruzzo was done " - intrigue is subjective, get rid of it, and would a casting be "done"? it reads clumsily.
You have one dead link, the etonline.com one. Use this link.
Keep citations in numerical order, you've got a [7][4] and [3][17][19][18]
"NBC's official Scrubs site." move to reference.
Eight external links for a single episode of a sitcom is quite excessive!

That's it for me, good luck with the article.

Ruhrfisch comments: Overall well done, here are some suggestions for improvement:

The lead should be expanded per WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is that every sction or subsection should at least be mentioned in the lead.
The plot has to be written from an out of universe perspective, see WP:IN-U. Since this is an article about a single episode, I think it would be usefil to have a paragraph or two about Scrubs as a show and the major characters. Someone who is not familiar with the show (let alone this epsidoe) would not know who JD and Elliot are, let alone that Turk and Carla are married and have just had a baby, etc.
Similarly, even for someone who has seen the show and this episode, it is always helpful to put people and situations into context. For example, I have seen this episode, but had no idea who "The Worthless Peons" were.
There are no references at all in the last three subsections of plot. FA will need at least one citation per paragraph, see WP:CITE and WP:V and WP:WIAFA
Similarly any sort of attribution (even if not a direct quote) needs a ref for FA. Example: Reyes and Faison were the only members of the cast (besides the Broadway star D'Abruzzo) to receive praise for their singing abilities.
Reception section seems OK to me, but I am no expert. I would ask the editor who made the comment to be more specific. I did notice that there is an error - this is not a film and cannot have been awarded anything at the 79th Academy Awards.
It is often helpful to have some model articles to follow that are on similar topics and already FA (congrats on the GA, by the way). I would use a model for structural questions.

Hope this helps, I enjoyed reading the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra! comments:

The first sentence of the article is slightly POV. Awards must not introduce a topic. Ultra! 15:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for all comments. I shall use these to try to improve the article Fritzpoll (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]