Wikipedia:Peer review/Chef (South Park)/archive1

Chef (South Park)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it's informative, well-written, well-interlinked with other articles, and well-referenced. I can't find any problems with it myself, and believe it is Featured Article material.

Thanks, Arran64 (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is missing info on merchandise and on some cultural references. Nergaal (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * According to checklinks (click "external links" in the toolbox to the right), there are a number of bad external links. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 00:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The IPA (I think!) is only a pronunciation of his surname which is a little odd.
 * Should the article be forced to display a title of "Chef (South Park)"?
 * Don't think you necessarily need to link out to music in the 1970s.
 * I would state that the show uses "cutout animation" rather than just assume we'll guess it.
 * First sentence of Character section is 58 words long consider chopping it up a bit!
 * "... pejorative "crackers", including the children." ref?
 * "(and in a few other instances" not keen on "a few".
 * Last three sentences of Character section are unreferenced.
 * No fair use rationale in place for use of File:Chocolate Salty Balls.jpg.
 * Don't link the word "album", it's commonplace.
 * "reached #1 in" don't use "hash" to represent "number" in prose.
 * "(an unsubtle jab at Scientology)." we both know that's true but (a) that's not neutral or elegant prose (b) it's not referenced.
 * Don't link "lightning", commonplace.
 * really dead[28]). -> move the ref to after the full stop.
 * "having never met the man" -> "never having met Chef"
 * Ref 3 needs fixing, both format and dead-wise.
 * And ref 6.
 * And refs 4 and 5 are tagged as dead.
 * What makes collegeprowler.com a reliable source?
 * Same question for www.everwonder.com?
 * Ref 22 needs to be appropriately formatted.
 * Ref 25 incomplete in format and claims to be dead.
 * Don't mix date formats in the refs.
 * Ref 26 is missing date/accessdate info.
 * Ref 29 is incomplete, but we don't use IMDB as it's not a reliable source.