Wikipedia:Peer review/What Lies Ahead/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was previously nominated for FA, but failed. I would love to see this article become a featured article, but prose is usually my greatest weakness. Several of the reviewers brought up issues with the prose, as well as inconsistencies with referencing. I would like a thorough review in preparation for a future FA nomination.
Thanks in advanced! —DAP388 (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Preliminary comment: Given that one of the first concerns raised in the FAC was plagiarism, I think it would be best to ensure that that issue has been addressed before we beginning detailing prose issues and the like. What steps have you taken to ensure that this aspect of the article is no longer problematic, and do you feel the article is now appropriately paraphrased? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have completely rewritten the plagiarized bits of the plot section (where all of the plagiarism was). The parts that were not plagiarized were either lightly edited or were left alone. I think I have completely solved the issue. —DAP388 (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- A few things (not a full review):
- I sympathize, with prose not being my strong point either in many respects - perhaps a review by the Guild of Copy-Editors? They have a new "potential FA reviewing" page.
- The alt text checker found some images lacking real alt text.
- I did a bit of copy-editing on the lead.
- One sentence in the lead caught my attention: "Worldwide, the episode averaged a 2.0 rating in most television markets." It is also found in the "Ratings" section. What does this mean? In other words, what is a 2.0 rating? If this means it was ranked second that night out of all shows at that time, which is what I am guessing, then please state that; otherwise, I have no idea what it means. Clarification of a "4.8HH rating" for those of us who don't follow TV ratings (or, actually, TV at all in my case...) would also be nice; 4.8 million households, perhaps?
- In the plot section, I tried to clarify things a bit - I understand a desire not to repeat the word "Rick", but the reader is not likely to remember his last name (or at least I didn't, without some searching among the characters for which one had the last name "Grimes"). I notice one or two other uses; perhaps this can all be best treated by deliberately alternating between "Rick" and "Grimes" wherever neither his wife nor his son are being discussed?
- The quote in the middle of the filming section is not at all clear as being a quote, partially because it was done as a blockquote but (at some screen widths) is right next to the photograph, obscuring the different formatting. Putting right after it something about it being "Rodney Ho" who is speaking would perhaps help.
- Again, not a full review by any means. Allens (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)