Wikipedia:Peer review/Futurama/archive2

Futurama
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FA status. I know the article is not yet perfect, but it is (in my opinion) in a much better shape than when previously reviewed as a GA/FA candidate. As it is a large article, I'd like to know what specific areas are worth focusing on.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks,  Dorsal  Axe  11:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Lemonade51 comments -- I think the article has a long way to go before it can be nominated for a WP:FAC. Some areas, such as 'Setting' and 'Themes' are well-written but a lack of citations in certain areas and prose problems lets it down. I've only skim read and below are the main concerns/ideas:
 * For inspiration, I suggest taking a look at other WP:FAC's related to the topic. The obvious, of course being The Simpsons.
 * Ask yourself this: does WP:LEAD provide a summary of the show? Does "In March 2011, it was announced that Futurama has been renewed for a seventh season, consisting of at least 26 episodes, scheduled to air in 2012 and 2013", really need to be included in the lead?
 * Would be nice if someone could find a picture of David Herman.
 * Under 'Opening sequence', "This was first trialled in the opening sequence for "Mars University", however it was realised", should it be 'realized' because it's an American program → American English?
 * Under 'Cancellation and revival': "Groening and Cohen wanted Futurama to be shown at 8:30", 8:30 am? pm?
 * Under 'setting' why is New New York italicised in the second sentence, but not in the first. I know it's to stress the passive voice but WP:CONSISTENCY
 * Crossbred does not need to be hyphenated.
 * "In the French dubbing of the show, German is used as the extinct language instead.", source for that?
 * 'International broadcast' could have some prose above the table, providing a summary of Futurama in other countries. Needs to be fully sourced where applicable. There is an extra column in the table I think.
 * "Journalist/critic Frank Lovece" → Journalist and critic Frank Lovece...
 * Is there a series summary table, like The_Simpsons? Perhaps you could follow that layout.
 * Likewise, is there a page for awards and nominations? Instead of listing all in this article, it could be summarized.
 * With references, be consistent with the date format; is it 15-04-2012 or 15 April 2012?
 * Is Ref 74 a reliable source?
 * Ref 77 is a YouTube link and therefore can't be considered a reliable source. There could be a copyright problem; see WP:YT for more information.
 * For Ref 99, the work is 'BBC Cult' and the publisher is 'BBC'. I notice it was published in 2002, not 2001.
 * Refs 120, 121 and 122 look like barelinks.
 * Two dablinks need fixing.
 * Three dead links. – Lemonade51 (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)