Wikipedia:Peer review/Sam and Diane/archive1

Sam and Diane
This peer review discussion has been closed. I have created and expanded this article for one month and would like to know your suggestions to make this either a GA-, A-, or FA-class. It has real-world coverage and references, and I wonder if there are a lot more or less than this article deserves.

Thanks, George Ho (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

doing Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just briefly: ther are a lot of presumptions/synthesis that needs clarification. Subject titles in the first section are too long and sing-songy/stroy like and not encyclopaedic. Otherwise well sourced and should have no probs at GA soon when stuff is answered. (i tagged some of them that need answering)Lihaas (talk) 07:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_and_Diane&diff=480212801&oldid=480108485 --George Ho (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Better but just check for overlink and fragments like the list of whio chose "According to the 1993 article from ..."Lihaas (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There have been updates: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_and_Diane&diff=481599731&oldid=480222093. --George Ho (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. I think that it needs a lot more work before it would have a chance at FAC, though it is closer to GA; here are some suggestions for improvement. 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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One thing I was struck by right away was that the article seems to make at least one claim that sounds like original research and is not backed up by the sources cited as far as I could tell. There is a section titled "Inspiration of other couples" which claims that "Sam and Diane are considered inspiration of television couples of later era by media." but the quote is only Chemistry between two characters slowly catches on and is great for a couple seasons; then the network suits realize they have something and suddenly you can't get away from the "will they or won't they" hooplah of, for example, Ross and Rachel (Friends), Mulder and Scully (X-Files), or Sam and Diane (Cheers).  I read all the refs in this section and none of them say anything that Cheers inspired another show that I could see.
 * Another problem with the article is that the prose is awkward in places and sounds like it was perhaps written by someone whose primary language is not English - for example "Sam and Diane are considered inspiration of television couples of later era by media." this could be better as something like "Some media critics consider Sam and Diane to be the inspiration of later couples"
 * Or another example from the lead is The on-off romance between Sam, a working class, retired athlete turned bartender and ladies' man, and Diane, a college graduate and cocktail waitress,[1]... this makes it sound like Sam turned into a ladies' man after retiring, but I think the show made clear that he was always a ladies' man. : --George Ho (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Or organizationally, why are the show's creators Glen and Les Charles and James Burrows not even mentioned in the first paragraph of Creation and casting? : --George Ho (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Or the quote box from Ted Danson lists him as appearing just on NPR, but the transcript makes clear he was on the NPR show Fresh Air and I would specify that : --George Ho (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is the novel When Angels Fail to Fly a reliable critical source to be quoted in this article? Is the author a recognized critic? Is the novel notable? See WP:RS into "Popular culture" section: . --George Ho (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections - they are choppy and interrupt the narrative flow of the article. For example, the Janet ELdridge section is just one sentence ''In the three-part episode, "Strange Bedfellows" (1986), Sam dates an intellectual politician Janet Eldridge (Kate Mulgrew), a rival of Diane.
 * I would also keep the focus on Sam and Diane - what does the previous sectence really have to do with the two characters and their relationship?
 * What does this mean "even if it won"?? Because Cheers was perceived to be dominated by Sam and Diane during Season Two (1983–1984), even some people felt that Cheers, even if it won, did not deserve to win Outstanding Comedy Series of 1984 Emmy Awards.[28][29][30] Did it win or not? Surely almost two decades later the winner of the Emmy is known, this sounds like it was written before the winner was announced., I think: . --George Ho (talk) 05:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would try to include more contemporary critical reaction (from the 1980s, when the shows were new)
 * This needs a copy edit
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)