Wikipedia:Peer review/Pilot (White Collar)/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pilot (White Collar)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to get feedback on this new article, and hopefully eventually get it to a Good Article and later even Featured Article if possible. I want to make sure I haven't overlooked anything, and that I've done everything correctly. Particularly, I'd like to check the use of and formatting of citations, the writing in the "Reviews" section, and the use of links throughout.

Thanks, Kevinbrogers (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article - sounds like a fun series. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. SInce your eventual goal is FA, there are four FAs which are on pilot episodes. They are Pilot (House), Pilot (Parks and Recreation), Pilot (Smallville), and Pilot (Supernatural) and seem like they would be useful models.
  • The MOS says to use a real person's full name the first time and then refer to them by just their last name afterwards (it is OK to use full name first time in the lead and again in the body of the article)(exceptions are people with one name or when two or more people have the same last name).
  • Avoid needless repetition - in the lead, instead of The cast includes Matt Bomer as Neal Caffrey, Tim DeKay as Peter Burke, Willie Garson as Mozzie, Marsha Thomason as Diana Lancing, and Tiffani Thiessen as Elizabeth Burke, Peter's wife. perhaps instead say something like In addition to Bomer and DeKay, the cast includes The cast includes Willie Garson as Mozzie, Marsha Thomason as Diana Lancing, and Tiffani Thiessen as Elizabeth Burke, Peter's wife.
  • The plot section is 593 words long, which is longer than any of the models. For comparison, the plots of the model FAs are: House 505, Parks and Rec 454, Smallville 445, and Supernatural 560 words. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) too.
  • One of the FA criteria is comprehensiveness - I think that a little more background would help make the article more comprehensive. FOr example, what did Eastin do before this series? See WP:WIAFA and WP:PCR
  • The Writing section seems very short - I would avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections if at all possible. Where possible combine the short paragraphs or sections with others, or perhaps expand them.
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - articles are linked once in the lead and once in the body, both on first use (infoboxes are OK for more links). Jeff Eastin is linked three times in the body of the article.
  • Why is the only place this cast change is mentioned in the Reception section? ...did not appreciate the use of Tiffani Thiessen as Elizabeth or the replacement of Marsha Thomason with Natalie Morales.[14]
  • Language is decnt but will need a copyedit before FAC for sure.
  • WP:MOSIMAGE says to have photos of people look into the text, not away from it, so the pic of Tim DeKay could be left justified.
  • Avoid needless repetition. In The Filming section the first sentence repeats info on the writer and director which already been stated. I also note most of this section is about the cast - would it be better in Casting? Problem is that there is relatively little on filming itself in this section
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]