Wikipedia:Peer review/List of pre-Stonewall American television episodes with LGBT themes/archive1

List of pre-Stonewall American television episodes with LGBT themes
This peer review discussion has been closed.
 * 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 January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it and its four sibling lists to featured list status and of the five I think this one is closest. Something of particular concern is whether secondary sources are required for each episode. Per WP:PSTS I don't believe they are and have not received a definitive answer on the FL talk page so that question really needs to be addressed.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement.
 * I would add references for each episode. If (as I suspect) they are mostly from a single book, I think a blanket reference would be OK. See ref 1 in List of Pennsylvania state parks (a FL) for such a blanket ref. I suppose if the talk shows are from one book, the docs another, and the dramas, etc a third there could be three blanket refs. If worse comes to worse, I would add a ref for each episode
 * I would provide more context for the Stonewall Riots - at least add the date (1969 IIRC) and I think a sentence explaining their significance in LGBT America is in order, given the title of the article.
 * I think the column header "Network" should be something like "Network or station" since many are local stations
 * Would it make sense to order the epsiodes chronologically?
 * I would add something to the Synopsis for each - if it is a talk show, say that. Identify the city if it was locally produced.
 * Why is one image left justified and all the others right justified?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I was afraid you'd say to add a ref for each episode. Re chronological ordering, the reason I didn't do that was because of the multiple years for some of them. I thought it was more important and smoother flowing to keep the episodes together in one row rather than splitting them off into multiple rows for individual episodes about which I have very little detail. The column is sortable chronologially, although imperfectly because of the multiple date situation for some shows. The one image is left justified to avoid image stacking. There's a fairly substantial distance between the CBS Reports row and the Max Liebman row, then two images close together, then another sizable gap between them and The Rejected row. Visually it looked awkward to me. I could left justify another image if you think that would give more balance or just rt-justify them all if you don't think it's an issue. Otto4711 (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You could always leave the refs off and add them in FLC if needed / requested. I would link Mike Wallace ... in Wallace later repudiated his participation ... and probably give his full name. I also wonder if it would help to have some sort of numerical breakdown in the lead - of the X episodes, Y are talk shows, Z are documentaries and W are dramas. I like the idea of right-left alternation of photos. Finally the first paragrap of the lead seems too long and the second too short. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)