Wikipedia:Peer review/Modern Family (season 1)/archive1

Modern Family (season 1)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I hope it can become a good article after a lot of editing

Thanks, NoD&#39;ohnuts (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts

Finetooth comments: Though I haven't seen the show, this sounds like a good series. To get the article up to GA, you'll need to improve the prose, attend to Manual of Style issues, and possibly beef up or combine some of the really short sections. You might be able to get some copyediting and proofing help from WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.

Lead
 * "Comedy" and "television series" are probably too well-known to need links. On the other hand, since you link "Vietnamese", you should probably link "Columbian".


 * "The show later received critical acclaim from most critics with many naming it the best new show of 2009 and was nominated for 14 Primetime Emmy Award the most nominations for a comedy series after Glee and was also nominated for 3 Writer Guild of America Awards winning 2 and won a Peabody Award." - Too complex. Suggestion: "The show later received critical acclaim from most critics, many of whom named it the best new show of 2009. It was nominated for 14 Primetime Emmy Awards, the most nominations for a comedy series after Glee. It also won a Peabody Award and two of the three Writer Guild of America Awards for which it was nominated."

Crew
 * "Christopher Lloyd and Steven Levitan as show runner." - Shouldn't that be "show runners" since there are two of them?


 * "Christopher Lloyd and Steven Levitan previously worked... " - This should be "Lloyd and Levitan" on second and subsequent uses.

Conception
 * Again, "Lloyd and Levitan". No link since they are already linked only a few sentences earlier in the article.


 * "about their family" - Maybe "families" since there are two?


 * "Originally the camera crew would be run by a Dutch filmmaker named Geert Floortje who had lived with Jay's family as a teenage exchange student... " - Isn't Jay a fictitious character? Oh, I see. This "camera crew" is fictitious too. Better make it clear here that the fictitious Dutch crew differs from the real camera crew.


 * "The creators pitched it to the four major networks except for Fox with CBS not ready for a big commitment, NBC already having two mockumentaries, The Office and Parks and Recreation, and ABC like CBS not ready for a commitment especially since they never had a single-camera show before, but eventually they picked it up." - Too complex. Rewrite for clarity. Avoid using "with" to tack on clauses; a terminal period after "Fox" would be a good way to start the rewrite. Then you could say, "CBS was not ready for a big commitment; NBC had... ".

Production
 * The subsections in this section are awfully short, which give the article a choppy look and feel. I might suggest merging "Crew" with "Cast" and maybe renaming the section "Cast and crew". Perhaps "Concept" and "Writing" could be merged or expanded.

Writing
 * "Although the show is scripted they are moments when the actors are allowed to improvise." - Needs a comma after "scripted", and "they" should be "there".

Reception
 * "The season ranked 21st in the seasonal 18-49 demographic ratings with an average of 3.9 rating/10% share in the demographic." - Instead of the front slash, clarify what it means. Does it mean "and" or "or" or "equivalent to" or something else? Ditto for front slashes elsewhere in the article.


 * "with an average of 9.48 million" - Constructions like 9.48 million" need a no-break code. WP:NBSP has details. Ditto for similar constructions in the article.

References
 * Citations 42 through 65 lack access dates, and other citations are incomplete. Citation 24, for example, lacks the author's name, Matt Richenthal. A good rule of thumb for web citations is to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access if these are known or can be found.


 * The date formatting in the reference section should be consistent. Some, like citation 26, use yyyy-mm-dd, while others, like citation 65, use m-d-y.

Other I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC) )
 * The tools at the top of this review page find no links to disambiguation pages, but the link-checker seems to be temporarily down. I see that citation 11 has a dead-link tag that will need to be addressed.