Wikipedia:Peer review/Movieland/archive1

Movieland

• 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.
Among other things, I recently got this article up to good article status. I had to do many adjustments to get it there, but my goal is to get this to be a featured article. Am I on the right track? Got any ideas? Also, before you go all "find positive coverage of this site", its pretty much impossible because every source I've found is about Movieland's malware and such. ViperSnake151 00:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: SOunds like a really slimy company. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• There are at least two direct quotations in the lead that need refs per WP:MOSQUOTE
• There is an excessive use of bold text - the WP:MOS says not to overuse bold, but the name MediaPipe is bolded, as are the six bullet points under Alleged violations of law
• Try to avoid most lists in the article by converting them to prose
• There are several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and the Washington settlement section is only one sentence. This is choppy and interrupts the flow of the article - these should either be combined with others or perhaps expanded
• WHat makes StopBadware.org a reliable source? See WP:RS
• Any estimates of the total number of "cutomers" they had?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - only thing I'm seeing on a quick run-through is that the district court in which the FTC filed its complaint should be identified, along with the judge who denied the FTC's preliminary injunction. Otto4711 (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)