Wikipedia:Peer review/North by North Quahog/archive1

North by North Quahog

 * 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 July 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 July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for FAC. I just finished working on it, and I have decided not to take it to GAn, but directly to FAC. However, I would like to have some feedback first. Also, if anybody owns the DVD set, audio commentary might be helpful to expand the production section. If anybody can find some more negative reviews of the episode, that would be great too, since the final paragraph of the Reception section kinda sucks.

Thanks, -- Music 26/  11  18:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can find him, contact User:Qst, as he worked on the article.Mitch/HC32 12:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He did some nice cleaning up and a little expansion before I started working on the article, but he has retired since, just read the note on his talk page. Thanks for the advice though.-- Music 26/  11  13:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This seems good except for quite a few minor proofreading errors, typos, and prose glitches. I fixed a dozen or small things and added some no-break codes to hold digits and units together on line-break. Below is a list of other suggestions or questions, none of which will be complicated to deal with. You might want to do another proofreading sweep to hunt for things I might have missed.

Lead
 * "though it had premiered three days earlier at a special screening in the grounds of the University of Vermont, Burlington." - "at" rather than "in the grounds of"?
 * "The episode also contained a large amount of cultural references" - "many" rather than "a large amount of"? Also, shouldn't you stick with present tense, "contains"?
 * "Critics reacted mostly positive to the episode... " - "positively", not "positive"?
 * "Directing in an Animated Television Production" - Lowercase?

Plot
 * "However, when they leave hotel, however, they are spotted by two priests... " - Delete one of the "however"s.

Production
 * "2.2 million copies of the DVD set were sold" - The Manual of Style says to avoid starting a sentence with digits. Maybe recasting as "Sales of the DVD set reached 2.2 million copies... " would solve the problem.
 * "the DVD set became the number 1 selling television DVD of 2003[7] and the second most-selling television DVD... " - "highest-selling rather than "most-selling"?
 * "accompanied with an hour-long Q&A with MacFarlane" - Perhaps "questions-and-answers session"?

Cultural references
 * "The fictional sequel is a combination between... " - "of" rather than "between"?
 * "The episode contained a number of other cultural references; Pinocchio appears in a cutaway gag, in which Gepetto tells Pinocchio to "go ahead and tell lies", and attempts to have sex with him.[31][11]" - The preferred order is ascending; i.e., [11][31]. Ditto for any other places in the article with multiple refs side-by-side.
 * "actually hits his wife, something he would usually only threathen with" - "threaten to do" rather than "threathen with"?

Reception
 * "The episode was led in by the 350th episode of The Simpsons... " - "was preceded" rather than "was led in"?

Images
 * The license for the lead image has a problem. The source link is circular; it simply shows the image. The fix for this is to provide a source link that goes to the site and page the image came from at FOX. That way, a fact-checker will able to verify the source to make sure the information is accurate. This verification process is a facet of WP:V.
 * The Gibson image license looks fine.

Dabs
 * The disambiguation tool, which lives here, found several disambiguation problems in the article. If you run the checker on the article, you will see where they are.

I hope these few comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)