Wikipedia:Peer review/List of The Big O media/archive1

List of The Big O media
As per SidiLemine's suggestion, I'm putting this article through peer review with the intention of going to WP:FLC.--Nohansen 22:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * GunnarRene
 * I've removed some YouTube links, which are discouraged here; some of the videos had been removed as copyright violations too. (The reason we don't link to them is because they are lax in removing violations though - oh, paradox).
 * I'm sort of OK with http://www.paradigm-city.com/ as a convenience link for viewing the openings. But if that is a fan-site for The Big O without some kind of publisher affiliation, then the music review hosted on it must be removed from the article and new citations found for the relevant parts.
 * Have a look through the Fatured List debates for our other fatured lists to see what sort of objections and comments are often raised.
 * Featured list candidates/List of RahXephon media (FLC in progress)
 * [[Image:LinkFA-star.png]] List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes
 * [[Image:LinkFA-star.png]] List of Oh My Goddess episodes
 * [[Image:LinkFA-star.png]] List of Planetes episodes

Here a pseudo-random review. (I've removed irrelevant parts)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, GunnarRene 01:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link.
 * Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
 * Avoid using contractions like: don't, won't, won't, haven't, hasn't.

And one more thing: Before you move to featured list candidate, at least a majority of the episodes should have articles, as per FLC criteria 1 a. --GunnarRene 02:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Didn't notice the videos from Youtube were removed. Thanks for fixing that. I'll see to working on more sources... I sort of threw together the list over the span of a few weeks. Looks good though, if I do say so myself.
 * Also: I was going to create episode specific articles, but was discouraged from doing so. See here. Anyone else have a say in this? Episode articles: in or out?--Nohansen 02:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, creating episode artiles should perhaps wait untill you have encyclopedic info to justify their creation. I also wanted to not make episode articles, but to be a featured list you need to list something with "blue links", and I was also getting more information than what would comfortably fit within a list. I also needed to refer to individual episodes. So that's why I created articles.
 * In any case, do all the other stuff first, and save episode articles to last. And if you can, give feedback on the RahXephon FLC above; negative citicism is very much appreciated too, for the improvement of the list. --GunnarRene 03:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "but to be a featured list you need to list something with "blue links"". While it is true that large amounts of red links are discouraged in FLCs, the existence of links is not always important. -- Ned Scott 20:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and List of Planetes episodes is a good example. --SteveA026 20:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That list had an article for each and every episode that only included the same plot summary as in the list, and I believe that was also the situation when promoted. Ned Scot recently redirected all the episode titles to the list and de-linked them. And rightly so. If an unlinked plot summary is the main focus of the article, then that is not something which we should have. And I agree that we should promote otherwise good episode lists even if they don't have an article for any episode &mdash; as long as it's good in other ways.--GunnarRene 22:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I created this article, following the guidelines in WP:EPISODE, and now it's been redirected to the media list. Any reason why this article was singled out? I understand SteveA026 had a problem with "forum posts as references", but couldn't you just remove the link?... Which, by the way, isn't a "forum post" in the pejorative sense of the phrase. It's just that the Save Big-O site has their episode synopsis in a forum. See here: "All the synopses have been completed, we just need final edits for some of them. If they are not yet posted to the main synopsis section you can find them in the forum.--User:Zola"


 * Oh, and by the way: SteveA026 created a List of allusions in The Big O. I like the idea. Any thoughts?--Nohansen 23:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Guess I jumped the gun on that edit. I took your comment on my talk page (and lack of response on the article's talk page) to mean that you changed your mind about the individual episode articles.  Oops.


 * And about the sources, I thought three was kind of excessive anyway for a short, to-the-point episode summary, so we're not damaging the credibility of the article by removing the forum source. TV.com alone should be sufficient to give us the info we need. --SteveA026 18:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)