Wikipedia:Peer review/Pixar/archive1

Pixar
I think this page is of good quality, possibly good enough for Good/Featured Article status. I have requested this review to point out any flaws that may need to be amended/removed entirely, before any nominations take place. RMS Oceanic 22:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Overall excellent content. However, the article needs significant grammatical/editorial revision.dpotter 21:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Recommend rewrite of lead section, eliminating repeating information (wholly-owned subsidiary of Walt Disney) and clarifying the most distinctive/notable aspects of the company (most notable for feature films or renderman?). Watch for similar stylistic gaffes throughout the article.  An example is the lead sentence in Executive leadership section - in which Steve Jobs is referred to in an introductory tone - with a description of his position at Apple - followed by the verb "continued", implying previous reference.  dpotter 21:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Recommend that the article uses last names for all references past the first as per WP:MOS. Watch out for repeating wikilinks. dpotter 21:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Review for repeating content (e.g. profitable arrangement mentioned twice within 3 sentences in "Disney & Pixar"). dpotter 21:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The article could perhaps benefit by refactoring the History section and the Disney/Pixar section. The latter section details a lot of history regarding this strategic relationship, why is that not part of the history section?  Concurrently, the History section contains "Early history" followed only by "Business in transition" - these do not appear to be parallel thoughts.  I suspect that these sections could be combined and reorganized in a way that integrates the Disney relationship into the corporate history and describes its impact upon the company's business trajectory. dpotter 21:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As per your advice, I have made a number of changes. Is there anything else you spotted, or perhaps I overlooked? RMS Oceanic 09:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 18:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)