Wikipedia:Peer review/The Bellflower Bunnies (season 1)/archive1

The Bellflower Bunnies (season 1)

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.
Now that I'm done with this list, it's off to the season pages. Though only a realllllly short debut season (Seinfeld, anyone?), this could be another FL in the wings. The references should definitely pack a punch as well.

Look out for the next two seasons within a week or so.

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Finetooth (talk · contribs · count)

Finetooth comments: This is a well-sourced short article about what sounds like a fun show. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

Paragraphs consisting of only one sentence are usually frowned upon. I think you could safely merge some of the shorties.
It would be good to include a little more variety in the language. In the "Production" section, for example, "was produced early in the show's production" should be re-written to avoid circularity. Something like this might work: "The company created a one-minute promotional pilot ... early during the show's production."
Abbreviations such as NATPE should be spelled out on first use. It should look like this: National Association of Television Program Executives (NATPE). On subsequent uses, it's then fine to use NATPE. The first instance of Featured Films for Families should have (FFF) after it so that we know what FFF means later in the article.
CINAR looks like an abbreviation but isn't. It appears that Cinar is correct.
I wondered what Region 1, Region 2, and Region 3 referred to exactly. You might add "Asia", "Europe", or whatever to the section heads unless the regions are too complicated to be explained in a word or two.
The "Reception" section consists of only one sentence. If other people published reviews, it would be good to expand this section a bit by including them. Critics usually express a variety of opinions. Did everyone like the series? Did they like all aspects equally? Did they like all the episodes equally?
For readers who might be unfamiliar with production terms, you might briefly explain or wikilink things like "pilot", "trace and paint department", and possibly "layout" and "animation".

I hope you find these brief comments helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved...but even after all this hard work, I'm afraid the review covered in "Reception" is the only thing I can find for this. If only someone else can provide more details...otherwise there could be a merge or removal. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 07:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]