Wikipedia:Peer review/Aang/archive3

Aang

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article just passed GA after its fourth nomination. I think the article has come a long way. The article has had previous peer reviews, but since the main problems with the article have remained the same until now, all of the reviews (with the exception of a comment by User:Figureskatingfan) have not been helpful whatsoever. Now that the article is fixed and is now in out-of-universe context for the most part, I would really like some serious comments on the article's quality so maybe it can be nominated for FA someday. Thanks, Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 15:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, I like this article, but it needs some things to me in order to be eligible to feature:
  • The section titles need to be rethought, particularly for the H2 "Avatar" section, both for itself and for the H3 sub-sections. It's a little ambiguous and not descriptive enough to guide the reader as to the topic of the section. Maybe simply changing the section title to "Avatar skills" or something, rather than simplly "Avatar" would be apropriate.
    • Done - I fixed the section titles in the Avatar section. I hope everything is better now.
  • The second half of the "bending" paragraph and most of the "medium" sescion is underreferenced.
    • Done - The bending paragraph is linked to capacity. Any seemingly unreferenced statements are actually referenced by the citation in the next sentence or two. As for the medium section, I completely rewrote the section.
  • The lead is underreferenced.
    • Done - I added some more references. However, I did not think the topic sentence needed to be referenced (as it is not in any other article).
  • The "Reception" section needs to be clarified, expanded and referenced. As a note, the response from parents is probably of the least critical importance. Priarily, you'd be looking at the watching demographic, and then reviewers and advertisers, while finally in the case of a pre-adolescent TV program, you may look at the responses by those who should control the viewing habits of the target demog. Using the word "especially" is a HUGE ask to leave in the article. I believe it needs to go altogether, since it's a very stsrong word, and even moreso, the statement is left unreferenced, so be very careful.
    • Partially Done - As of now, I removed the statement about the parents because, as you said, it is generally not necessary and of little importance. In addition, the statement is speculation. However, I have yet to expand and reference the section. I expanded the section a little bit. Unfortunately, there is not much more information.
  • Hair color: Dark Brown (When not shaven). I would prefer to simpl state "Dark Brown (generally shaven)", as this gives the reader a clearer perception of the character, and is in a more appropriate use of the english language.
    • Done - Replaced old phrase with new suggested one. You are right, it does make sense to say that his hair is generally shaven.
  • Inuniverse style: a few places really dwell on character information for too long, considering the reader ought to generally have it reminded that it's a work of fiction they're reading about.
    • Done - I found the most in-universe context in the Avatar abilities section. However, there were some in other sections so I fixed them too. Hopefully, it is up to standard now.
  • Lead: needs some expansion. The three paragraphs in there all need to be doubled in size. It can easily be done by noting out-universe things, such as "Aang, being the central characer for the program, has appeared in all episodes of the show, beginning with its pilot "The Boy in the Iceberg". You mention Aang as "comic relief" and as a "reluctant hero". These are both speculative terms. I'm not saying its wrong to say so, but it's not reinforced by the body of the article (with the info about reluctant heroism being only hinted at again in the artile's characteristics section VERY briefly), and most importantly, it's not sourced, either in the article nor in the lead.
    • Partially Done - I removed one of the speculative statements, as it is not necessarily true, and I sourced the other. The lead has yet to be expanded. I expanded the lead and referenced a bit more. Hope its OK now.
• I hope these observaions help you. Once you'vev tackled these things, I'll gt back to you if anything else jumps out at me. --rm 'w avu 13:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I fixed all of the problems to the best of my ability. Now the article has really come a long way since B-class. It is really starting to develop into a full article. Please leave comments if anything else is wrong or if you have more comments. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 00:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)