Wikipedia:Peer review/Futurama (TV series)/archive1

Futurama (TV series)
I was impressed by this article and nominated it as a featured candidate, but it clearly it is not to that standard yet. On the recommendation I received there, I am referring this article to peer review. It's pretty good, but it needs improvement. I'd love to see this reach featured standard. --L33tminion | (talk) 17:02, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have removed the article from FAC, since it's not meant to be in both places. I hope you don't mind, please just re-nominate it on FAC whenever you're ready to! Peer reviewers can see the FAC commentary already gathered here, there's quite a lot of it. Bishonen | Talk 17:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I read it, found it funny and entertaining (just like the show). Nice work! -- Zalasur 18:31, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest to resolve FAC objections first - especially the lack of references and merging short paragraphs etc. Lead should be expanded, it misses basic info like the series lenght and its status (cancelled). Remember, unless they are resolved, this article will be put down at FAc again and again. This should be fairly easy to fix, the article needs no expantion, just some rewriting. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused by the complaint that the article is "mostly lists" as it reads fairly well for me, and I'm not sure how to make it prose-like without removing a lot of interesting information. At any rate, I really appreciate your help.  --L33tminion | (talk) 15:58, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm confused about most of what they said. Seems the main objections are
 * 1. The article has lists
 * I argue we have more prose then lists. If this is the reason for FAC rejection, this can be argued. Maybe if we have more then 7-10 items in the list, we can defer it to an external list. The smaller ones do not need a lone article because that's all they will be. 5 points or so with little information. A merge candidate.
 * 2. The article lacks references
 * The only references we can provide is the series itself. Either we need to indicate which episode it came from at each point, or simply list the series as the reference. Is only one reference enough to argue FAC? I doubt it, I'd back it up.
 * 3. Merge smaller paragraphs and some tweaking
 * This I agree with. We'll just need someone to go through the entire article and remove redundancy wherever possible
 * We could definately use some information on the show's cancellation. Besides that, I think we're ready to resubmit for FAC.
 * --Will2k 13:33, May 4, 2005 (UTC)