Wikipedia:Peer review/Stephen Fry's Podgrams/archive1

Stephen Fry's Podgrams

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 October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been promoted to GA, and I am hoping it might be possible to promote it FA as well. One thing that was mentioned in the GA nomination was that it was difficult to find a current list of the most downloaded podcasts on iTunes. If anyone knows a one that is also a reliable source, that would be very helpful.

Thanks, ISD (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr pda: On first glance the article seems reasonably solid, though I suspect it probably wouldn't be promoted to FA as it currently stands, since there's not really that much to it. (It is only 3/4 of the length of the current smallest FA). Specific comments:

The statement that they were first made downloadable on 20 February 2008, made in the lead and repeated in the infobox, is not cited to a source.
Ditto the statement that the podgrams are hosted by The Positive Internet Company.
I'm not sure that collective thoughts in reference to an individual makes much sense
The podgrams are one of the most downloaded podcast series on the internet: again this claim in the lead is not cited, or indeed mentioned elsewhere in the article.
The article could probably do with a brief description of who Stephen Fry is. Once again the sentence in the lead (British comedian, author and polymath Stephen Fry) is not in the body of the article, or cited. Per WP:LEAD Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article...This should not be taken to exclude information from the lead, but to include it in both the lead and body
Is there any explanation for the name podgram?
The statement Stephen Fry's Podgrams have been well received by critics at the start of the reception section is not supported by the reference at the end of the paragraph. In fact you only quote three critics; if the series is so popular shouldn't there be more critical commentary? Also, are there any critics who don't like the series?
The Good Web Guide reference gives further examples of Fry recycling content for his podgrams, so should perhaps be cited in the section where this is mentioned. Does current reference [6] (the Broadcasting podgram) support the statement The material is usually original for each podcast, but he may revisit topics that he has previously discussed.?
In the references to the podcasts, why do you only give the url http://www.stephenfry.com/media/<nowiki>, and not the url of the podcast page, e.g. <nowiki>http://www.stephenfry.com/media/audio/1/episode-1--broken-arm/?
Current reference [5] (http://www.stephenfry.com/media/) doesn't support the statement that podgrams are published as blessays.
The information in the tables does not appear to be cited. Also date linking is now deprecated; in addition the date format used here is inconsistent with the 20 February 2008 which appears in the lead.

Hope this helps. If you find these comments useful, please consider peer reviewing an article yourself, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Dr pda (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]