Wikipedia:Peer review/Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation/archive2

Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation

 * Previous peer review
 * 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.
 * 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. How I haven't been to this page, once an FA target of mine, in quite some time. And with my new Bellflower obsession on the rise, I haven't even got the time any more. I'll try to see if I can improve it with whatever comments you can provide with below. This time, I'll make it a GA at most.

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This article has a couple of big problems and some smaller ones. Here are some suggestions for improvement.


 * I agree with whoever added the "too long" tag above the plot synopsis. I wonder also about the source of the synopsis. If this is your personal description of the plot, it might be regarded as personal research. It's doubtful that a professional reviewer would describe the plot in this much detail. Please see WP:NOR.


 * You'll have a hard time justifying the use of three fair-use images in this article. I see that one is flagged for deletion, and I doubt that more than one will survive scrutiny. Mr suggestion would be to use only the one in the infobox.


 * The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated. I ran a script to unlink the dates in this article. Please see WP:UNLINKDATES for the recent changes to the guidelines.


 * I'd recommend deleting the word "unexpectedly" from the phrase, "before disappearing unexpectedly from the box-office charts". If you leave it in, it needs a source.


 * In the "Release and reception" section, it's not clear what the phrase "wide break" means. Does that mean the movie's rise or its fall in the charts?
 * The link to the Vincent Canby review is dead. You might substitute this one in the citation.


 * The Maltin citation includes an access date but no url. Should it have an url? If you are citing a book in print, the print version would have no access date.


 * Citations 7 and 8 lack urls.

If you have questions about any of these comments, please ask. I'll keep a watch on this peer review page. Finetooth (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)