Wikipedia:Peer review/Ghost Adventures/archive1

Ghost Adventures
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it seems to need attention, and few have added useful content to it. Recently, I have done major edits to it, including copy-editing, merging, and adding more sourced info. Would it be better if the episode list or section was separated?

Thanks, serioushat 09:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"Note: Peer review is backlogged at the moment, which could mean delays of up to two weeks before articles can be reviewed. You can help, by choosing one of the articles in the backlog, and reviewing it. Please consider doing this."

Thanks for your work on this article. From what I see above you have done quite a bit of copy editing, merging and adding more information. I will make comments on the formatting, writing and content (where I can). I will also look specifically at the episode list/section as you requested.

Lead
 * You'll want to make sure that every subject in the body of the article is also summarized in the lead. See WP:LEAD for more on this.  I don't think the lead is as complete as it should be.
 * This sentence is a bit confusing:
 * "the show originally airs every Friday at 9:00 PM"
 * The word "originally" gives the reader the impression that things have changed since then. Yet the word "airs" is in the present tense, which gives the reader a different impression.  If things have changed then airs should be aired.  If it is in the same time spot then remove originally.


 * You normally want the in-line citation on the outside of the parentheses. I made the change in the lead, check throughout the article.

Overview
 * This section is sporadically sourced, and not very well.
 * In the phenomena list only apparitions is referenced, why is that? Usually lists embedded in article text are discouraged.  See WP:LIST for thoughts on that.  Consider changing the list here into prose.
 * The image at the end of this section is poorly placed as it spills into the next section. I moved it into the next section, and it seems more applicable there anyway.

Cast and crew
 * Usually it isn't good form to place in-line cites in the middle of a sentence. It's fine to put it at the end of a sentence. Putting it in the middle, as you did in the first sentence in this section, starts to break up the sentence to much.
 * I don't see what the last paragraph about Zak's greatest fears has to do with the subject. Seems tangental and should probably be removed.
 * I would say the same about the most memorable experiences section. Isn't really adding to the content.
 * Duplicative information on Groff's possession and again not much added by the information about what startled him, I'm sure a lot has startled him but why is this in the article?
 * Same can be said about the scratches on Goodwin's leg, not necessary IMO.

Episodes
 * In the Ghost Adventures live section it says that the third season started with some live 7-hour event. I'm confused because I only see one season preceding this.  Am I missing something here?  And then below it the heading is "Season 1", so that also is confusing to me.
 * Also having this prose after the table is a bit confusing given the fact that you explain the documentary film in the table. There is also no explanation of the "Cutdown" and the "Poveglia Island special".
 * I would remove the fact that Season 1 is available on DVD on Amazon.com. That starts to feel like advertising to me.
 * I don't mind the episode listing as you have done. I think it is inconsistent though to have one episode with explanatory text and the rest with just the name of the episode.  See episodes 1.04, and 3.06 as examples.  Either summarize them all or none of them.  The only wording that should be here is if there was something special about the episode (i.e. a two-part episode, or one that was particularly controversial).
 * Mark Steel's in Town, which is a TV show GA is set up similar to what you've got here. I would look at that article for ways to improve yours, especially in the Episode section.  Not sure if the color of your tables is appropriate.  Not a big deal especially if you don't have plans for getting this article to FA.  If you do then I'd cut out the color.

Reception
 * Season 1 released to DVD and on Amazon.com shows up here as well. Definitely remove as duplicative and see above for other reason.

References
 * Make sure your reference format is consistent. I recommend using the cite web format.  For websites you need to have the url, title, publisher and accessdate as minimum requirements.  Several of your references are just the url.
 * Two of your refs have been marked as dead links, these will need to be fixed.

Overall
 * I think you're off to a good start with this article. There are some areas for improvement but I think the writing is good and the coverage is pretty comprehensive.  If there is rating information that would be great but if not that's fine to.  It's hard to find that sort of info on cable shows.
 * Make sure you check the lead and summarize all the info from the article in the lead.
 * That concludes my review, if you have any questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page as I don't normally watch my reviews. Keep up the good work.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 19:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)