Wikipedia:Peer review/Cow and Chicken

Cow & Chicken
Requesting peer review on this article. It's an older cartoon series on Cartoon Network, no longer in production, yet still on the air. The article itself should be fairly stable, but would like to get the highest quality possible, shooting for GA. Pretty much open to any suggestions, comments, and what-have-you. I know that's a fairly wide open request...

Yngvarr 22:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

J Milburn
I prefer wide open requests, so I can write about what I like. Here are a few things I would do to improve the article-
 * The article is seriously lacking in references. That seems to be the main problem here. Every statement should be referenced.
 * Remember about section titles- they should only be capitalised if they are proper nouns. Some titles seem to be capitalised when they shouldn't be.
 * Is it 'Red Guy', 'the Red Guy' or 'The Red Guy'? You seem to alternate between them within the article.
 * The character listings are a little patchy, grammatically, and could do with a copyedit. Some examples-
 * Slappy McCracken is missing a space.
 * Photo-Realistic Beaver has a capital mid sentence.
 * Ditto for Blind Mud Puddle Johnson, which also says 'he's', instead of just explaining who he is.
 * Some say (voiced by...) others just have the voice actor.
 * Others.
 * Whenever referring to the name of the series, it should be phrased as Cow & Chicken. Note the italics and the &. An example of when it is not can be seen in the last line of 'History'.
 * "Cow and Chicken are a brother and sister who are a chicken and a cow" this implies the cow is called Chicken and the chicken is called Cow, which I know is wrong, because I remember my younger brother watching this.
 * Episodes should always have speech marks around them. Note the last line of the section on Chicken.
 * The last line of 'DVD releases' is missing a full stop, which should go BEFORE the ref.
 * Despite using only a few references, some of them are unreliable. Both h2g2 and IMDB rely on user-submitted content, and so are counted as unreliable.

I am happy to review further, drop me a line on my talk page if you would like me to. J Milburn 14:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * More references needed, for sure.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 11:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 01:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)