Wikipedia:Peer review/Feast of Fools (podcast)/archive1

Feast of Fools (podcast)

 * 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 July 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 July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. This article is now looking fairly comprehensive, and a while back I think I trimmed excessive self-promotion. I'm still a bit worried that it sounds self-promotional, but as a listener of the show I'm having a hard time looking at it objectively. I think it's time that some fresh eyes look at it. Does this article have a neutrality problem, and if so, what specific parts of it would need to be modified, and how? Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are several things in the lead that need to be fixed. The title should be in bold, and LGBT needs to be explained - spelled out and (LGBT) after. The lead should also be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
 * The article as written is very list-y, most (or all) of these bullet point lists should be converted to prose.
 * Article needs more references, for example the whole Show personalities section has no refs, and there are none in the last two paragraphs of History. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. I also note that internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * There are a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - these should be combined with others or possibly expanded. I would also provicde context for the reader (see WP:PCR) and explain who some of these people are, just to pick one "Kinidy Monrow- Guest" That seems to me to be the most self promotional parts - who are these people and why should they be mentioned here?