Wikipedia:Peer review/ItsJustSomeRandomGuy/archive1

ItsJustSomeRandomGuy

 * 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 May 2009.
 * 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 May 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I have contributed significantly to the article at User:Raaggio/Sandbox, added a Fair Use image, corrected the prose, removed unnecessary stuff, tabled the episodes, etc. Ninety percent of the prose was created by other people, and I have spotted some errors. I'm nominating it for Peer Review to also discover the errors and perfect the article.

Thanks,  Raaggio  04:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While it is clear a lot of work has been put in to this article, it needs a lot of work to meet the Manual of Style. So here are some suggestions for improvement.
 * The lead needs to be expanded to more than just one paragraph. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
 * I think per WP:Summary style and also how most such articles are formatted, the episode lists should be split off into their own article / list.
 * I am awaiting WP:CONSENSUS on this. I'd love the idea because the list can eventually become an FL, but per WP:SIZERULE, a 60kb article might not be a necessary split. I hate controversy, so I'll just wait off for some more comments before splitting the video list to ItsJustSomeRandomGuy videography.  Raaggio  03:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My thought is most articles on television shows have separate lists for the actual episodes unless there are very few episodes. Since there are so many episodes, it seems to me that would be the model to follow - I do not write articles on TV or Internet shows, so there may be a different specific guideline applicable here. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 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
 * I also am concerned that the article relies too much on primary sources (the programs themselves) and needs more refs from independent third-party sources.
 * You are right. I'll get on this right now.  Raaggio  03:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also make sure that the sources used are reliable sources - blogs are not generally reliable sources, for example
 * for example what?  Raaggio  03:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is hard to tell with the way refs are formatted now, but for example what makes http://www.stinkbrown.org/2008/05/21/itsjustsomerandomguy/ a reliable source? It seems to be a blog. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Critical reception is lacking - reviews are mentioned, but not what the reviewers said.
 * The level of detail seems excessive - not sure all of this meets notability although the overall channel does.
 * WP:NNC states "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people."... therefore, the notability guideline is not relevant here.  Raaggio  03:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I just know as I read this the level of detail seemed excessive to me in places. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're the second person to state the dilemma. Can you try to specifically state where, because I as the writer am completely oblivious. Try and tell me so I can correct them with ease. Thank you,  Raaggio  04:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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; 04:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A model article is helpful for ideas and examples to follow - not sure if these would be good models, but 4chan is a FA and Homestar Runner is a GA . Well I looked at WikiProject Internet culture which said Homestar Runner was a GA, but it is a former GA.
 * Thanks, I'll get on most of this soon.  Raaggio  03:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Second look Given your question about excessive detail, I took a second look at the article just now. Here are my thoughts. Hope this helps some more. Remember this is supposed to be an encylcopedia article, so not every detail is needed (they should be in refs for the interested), Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Lead is still way too short - I am also not really sure what the article is about. The first sentence of the lead and infobox make it seem to be about Michael Agrusso, the person whose pseudonym this is, then the lead says it is also about the YouYube channel. For being a biography there is very little on Agrusso (when and where was he born, what else has he done?). There is some info in the lead "American voice acting teacher, writer, and performer working in Los Angeles" but this is not clearly restated in the text. There is next to nothing on Brinna Li.
 * There are some places that need more context for the reader - except for a link in the Infobox we are not told much abouit Marvel or DC or their rivalry. The characters and creators are also not really explained (though most are linked). If someone is not already fairly knowledgable about comics a sentence like "in which Lex Luthor attempts to prevent Stan Lee from creating the Marvel Universe." will be menaingless (and Stan Lee is not even linked here).
 * I tried rereading this and just got bogged down in details. Here is one examples with a suggested pared down version:
 * Since the premiere dates are given in the tables do we really need all the detail about Goblin bloggin? Also posting real world emails in Wikipedia articles is against the guidlelines. In general the prose could be tightened, so here's the original:
 * Also, in the interim period between After Hours #5 and #6, Agrusso created a new spin-off for the Green Goblin character. Titled Goblin Bloggin', it parodies Internet bloggers, as the Green Goblin rants about his life and relationships, and responds to emails. Agrusso set up a real hotmail account specifically for fans to write emails to the fake blog: goblinbloggin@hotmail.com. He posted Goblin Bloggin' #2 between After Hours #6 and #7 on October 7, 2007, and Goblin Bloggin' #3 between Happy Hour #1 and #2 on July 6, 2008.[6]
 * This could just be shortened to something like
 * On August 28, 2007, Agrusso posted the first epsiode in Goblin Bloggin', a spin-off for Marvel's Green Goblin character which parodies bloggers. As of May 2009, there have been three episodes (posted following After Hours #5, After Hours #6, and Happy Hour #1) in which the Green Goblin rants about his life and relationships, and responds to emails. Agrusso set up a real hotmail account specifically for fans to write emails to the fake blog.
 * I also note the episode lengths are not in the tables (at least for Goblin Bloggin')