Wikipedia:Peer review/Andrew Van De Kamp/archive1

Andrew Van De Kamp
I have been working on and off on this article for a while now, and recently a user has come along and removed vast swathes of what I have written. As I was planning on making this FA eventually, I suppose it might be a good time to peer review Andrew. So, how do I make this article FA? Should I use the current version, or the previous version? Comments would be appreciated. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed the automated suggestions, because they aren't in the slightest helpful (and never have been for any article I've ever peer reviewed). Some human input would be appreciated. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Trebor
It looks generally good. Thoughts: I'm not sure if any similar articles (minor fictional characters) have become an FA; I'd be interested to see how this one goes down. It is fairly short, and about half of it is in-universe, which may be seen as problems. That said, you can only write with the information available and, presuming this is comprehensive, it seems pretty good. Trebor 12:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would aim for somewhere in-between the two leads, maybe two longer paragraphs than four short ones, since it's a fairly short article
 * Sentence beginning His manipulative tactics is long and snaky separating the main clause with a lot of subclauses
 * I'm not really sure whether the longer or shorter biography should be used; again, I might go for somewhere in-between. I think the cites should be included where possible, though, as there's no advantage to not having them. The problem with this article seems to be trying to keep it mostly out-of-universe (per WP:WAF). Is there anything more you could say about the character or critical development?
 * Are the two sentences starting from From Andrew's hurt cited? If not, it's original research, since you're working out what it implies.
 * Interestingly however - the "however" isn't contradicting anything so is redundant (the "despite" does it for you). Interestingly isn't really necessary either, and is ever-so-slightly POV.
 * However, Shawn - again, no contradiction, no need for it
 * I will try to work on your suggestions this weekend. Thank you for the peer review! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Fiddle Faddle
I'm reviewing this from a position of looking at the article with no knowledge of the topic.

Overall
A hypercritical proofread for syntax, etc, with the use of commas is needed. An example is Fed up Bree drove him to a gas station whcih shoudl read Fed up, Bree drove him to a gas station

The article seems written with regard to US TV audiences. The homosxuality issue is far less surprising in Europe, and homosexual kisses and embraces, while not the norm, are no longer surprising, certain in the UK. It may be possible to detail that in the article.

For me the style is a little too "narative" and not enough "encyclopaedic formal". I know we are not making this a "TV Review", I just feel a little more formality woudl be of benefit.

I just have a few specific comments below:

Prior to Season 1
This seems to me to be short to the point of being not worth including. Thus it requires expansion. Is it important?

Season 1
I'm not sure a diaresis is useful. If there is a never endling list of things he has done I feel it needs articulating

Season 2
Andrew, realizing he really is about to lose his mom, tells her that the only good thing is that he has won - won what? Fiddle Faddle 14:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This summary was not written by me, so I would be grateful if, like Trebor above, you could compare the current version, and the previous version, which I tried to reference and keep formal. I wasn't sure, as I have never written an article of this type before, which version would be preferable. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am confused. I can really only review the current article, because that is what appears to everyone.  Comparing it with the prior version is an interesting academic exercise, but isn't really very usual, is it?  Fiddle Faddle 23:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. Light dawns.  You made that request at the top.  Now I see what you were asking for.  Still a little confusing, but I'll have a look when I can.  Fiddle Faddle 23:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This will get quite complex. I think you need to work forward form the version that is the current version, and incorporate the best bits of the prior version along with the various comments here.  Fiddle Faddle 23:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, I must have forgotten to watchlist this, because I didn't see these comments. Thank you for your reviews, and I will try to address your concerns and criticisms this weekend. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted to my version and cut out the more fancrufty bits. To be honest with you, this article now looks like a bit of a car crash in the Biography section. What tense should it be in? How do I make it "out-universe"? Anything else? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

General
Good call to revert, unless, of course, that gets you into a revert war. I see what you mean about a car crash, but it's not too bad. However I still believe it looks like a review of the episode. I think it shoudl be more about the character. I would divide the bio from the plot. Now that is pretty tough to do since the plot is the bio in so many ways. What I mean is to make it more formal and less journalistic review.

Siemgi
I'm finally making my review to explain my stance a bit more

My ideas
While I respect all the work you have made (especially since quite a few of my articles have been harshly critised), I think that a profile must remain a profile and not become an exhaustive list of the character's actions. You go too far giving details that are not that important. I also do believe that you don't have to cite every moment of the show with notes as there is no doubt it's accurate. I think people come here to have an overview on the character not an extensive diary. I hope you won't take any offense from what I am writing as this is not my point. Secondly, I think the gay part is way to emphasized. Andrew is gay but not just gay if you see what I mean. And the introduction is a bit too long and redundant when you read the entire article, most of it belongs, at least I think so, to the character and criticism sections (which are great by the way). Actually your profile would be great on a fan site but maybe not on an encyclopedia. Look at all the bios on the other characters. they are way shorter still you get a could understanding of who the characters are. I'm open to any commentary on my review.
 * I am aware that my coverage of Andrew is too detailed, and I have started making moves to cut that down. Andrew is obviously a complex chracter (and don't I love him for it), but his sexuality has been his main storyline in Season 3, and the underlying cause of his behaviour in Season 2. I consider the biography section to need a great deal of work in terms of tone and tenses, and your criticisms of it are extremely valid. However, I would not compare this biography with that of other DH characters, as they are all written in a fancrufty in-universe type manner. I am trying to avoid and correct that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also add that while there perhaps is not a great need to cite his fictional actions with the appropriate episode, I consider it a useful thing to do and can't see the benefit in not including them. It just makes it slightly easier for someone to see where something happened (or, for that matter, someone to check the information is correct). Trebor 22:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Saying the episode's title is fine. Saying on 13'40' ' is a bit too much. one source for everything that belongs to the episode would be enough. And maybe sum up the quotations so that it still shows the idea but doesn't look like a serie of quotes. Hope that helps Siemgi