Wikipedia:Peer review/Tom and Jerry (MGM)/archive1

Tom and Jerry (MGM)

This article seems pretty comprehensive to me and failed its fac nomination primarily due to the fact that it had not undergone a peer review. I've never nominated an article before, so I'm not exactly sure what to ask for, other than for comments on how any part of the article might be improved. -Orayzio 22:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This actually looks like a great article - nice use of pictures, good use of sections. Could perhaps use some more images of the other recurring characters. Otherwise, a pretty good article! --Alex (Talk) 22:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where are all the references and footnotes? - Tutmosis 00:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is without dobut the most common and familiar definition of "Tom and Jerry". It should occupy the title without the disambiguator since the other links at Tom and Jerry are so much more obscure. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely! This article should be the main Tom and Jerry article. --198.185.18.207 14:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are the reasons why Tom chases Jerry OR? I mean, it seems fairly straightforward, but why is this list there? --198.185.18.207 14:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has two major problems: There are no inline citations, and there are far too many copyrighted fair-use images in the article. An article such as this should use no more than 3 or 4 copyrighted images. Each fair use rational must be unique, otherwise the fair use claim is significantly weakened. Both of these problems would prevent this article from achieving FA status. Kaldari 05:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No inline citations, problems with Fair Use images, section headings don't conform to WP:MOS. Review all of the criteria, and in particular the tips from other users at the bottom of WP:WIAFA, cite the article, and possibly reapproach peer review after you've done that work, before approaching FAC. Sandy 23:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with inline citations and fair use of images. But overall, this is a great article. Nat91 19:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the fair-use images, do you really think all of the title cards are necessary? The one in the lead is probably the only one you need. Jay32183 19:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 15:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]