Wikipedia:Peer review/List of characters in Holby City/archive1

List of characters in Holby City
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I hope eventually to nominate it for WP:Featured List status, and would like advice on how to improve it with this in mind. The article has undergone major change over the past couple of months, from to as it stands at present, and I welcome suggestions on how to advance and refine it further. Many thanks, Frickative 22:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 June 2008.
 * 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 June 2008.

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. 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; 13:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Please see WP:LEAD
 * I am pretty sure the lead image needs a credit / source for each of the individual images in it - see the lead image in Radiohead for an example, here: Image:Radiohead.jpg
 * Provide context for the reader - Holby City is not linked in the lead and the link to Casualty is a dab. See WP:PCR
 * References need to all be reliable (imdb is not considered to meet WP:RS) and need to provide the same information consistenly - Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful.

Copied from my talk page: You ... said that the lead needs to be more "accessible and and inviting", how exactly do we do that to improve the article? ^_^ steve king 89 22:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Accesible and inviting are both taken from the introduction to WP:LEAD, by which this should be a two or three paragraph lead - it is now just one paragraph and needs to be expanded.
 * I have never seen this show or heard of it before I did the review. The lead should tell me enough about the show and the cast members that I want to read the article. From reading about Holby City and Casualty (TV series) (neither of these exact links was in the lead when I reviewed this initially) I have some idea of what is going on, but I would expect the lead would give some brief history of the program. Mention when it started, that it is a spin off of Casualty, that characters and plots will sometimes crossover, and what it focuses on. I also find it very interesting that there are none of the original cast members left on the show - why such turnover?
 * Model articles are useful for ideas and examples to follow. I note that List of cast members of The Simpsons, List of Harry Potter films cast members, List of Meerkat Manor meerkats, and List of Survivor contestants are all FLs and may be useful models.
 * Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - the article may need fewer sections / headers too.
 * What about the show and characters in it do you find interesting? Can that be worked into the lead somehow to draw the reader in?

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FLC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. (Bear in mind that FAC and FLC might have differing requirements about where to put citations, but the reliability of sourcing should stay the same between the two processes.)
 * What makes the following sources reliable?
 * http://www.holby.tv/ (looks like a fan site)
 * http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/
 * You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE.
 * Some of your website sources are lacking publisher and/or last access dates.
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 11:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)