Wikipedia:Peer review/The Principal and the Pauper/archive1

The Principal and the Pauper

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Added a notice at talkpages of WP:DOH, WP:COMEDY, WP:US-TOON, WP:TV.

The Principal and the Pauper was successfully reviewed and listed as a Good Article on February 4, 2008, and has remained stable since then. It is part of the Featured Topic, The Simpsons (season 9). I have started this Peer Review, in order to elicit suggestions about anything else that could be done to improve the article further, and/or comments if you feel it is ready for WP:FAC just yet, as the article moves along in the quality process. Thanks for taking a look, Cirt (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This line bugs me: "In the original draft, there were two sentences that Keeler felt illustrated this point even better and would have made all of the difference in the episode. However, they were cut for time." It is cited, but the cite is to the DVD commentary which, of course, is vapor to anyone who does not own the DVD set. I would like to know what those "two sentences" were, if they were so crucial to the structure of the episode. Tantalizing the reader like this is foul play. Also, the last paragraph of the article, "Legacy", is awkwardly written and needs work. And finally, though the negative reaction to the episode is well detailed, would it really hurt so much to just come out and truthfully say that the episode is pure crap? (wink wink) --Captain Infinity (talk) 16:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, I think perhaps Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) would be the best one to address most of that stuff, though I could work on rewording the last paragraph of the article, "Legacy". Cirt (talk) 16:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Keeler doesn't say what the two lines were. He says they would have made all the difference, but then says he can't remember what the were. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case then inclusion of the comment seems pointless. IMO. Captain Infinity (talk) 19:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-automated peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]
As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, Can't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?] You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR _t 03:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to semi-automated peer review

Posting semi-automated peer review here above, will respond to each of the points raised. Cirt (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?] -- Misperception from the automated peer review, the Lead/Intro is of a sufficient length. Cirt (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?] -- I went and looked through the article, could not find any instances of full-dates that were not wikilinked per WP:MOSDATE, but it is possible I may have missed one, perhaps as a citation in the References section. Cirt (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?] -- I believe this refers to the one instance in the Plot section, Seymour Skinner prepares to celebrate his 20th anniversary as school principal. - and in that particular instance I think the use of "20th" is appropriate. Cirt (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, Can't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded. -- Fixed one instance of this, the other is the title of a book. Cirt (talk) 09:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?] You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR _t 03:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC) -- Will continue to copy-edit the article and ask for some input from other experienced copy-editors. Cirt (talk) 09:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]