Wikipedia:Peer review/Sam and Diane/archive2

Sam and Diane
This peer review discussion has been closed. This is the second peer review request; this may help. I have done as much as I can in (or "Sam and Diane" if history log is already moved at WP:REPAIR request). Meanwhile, I have added some more plot details that include cliffhangers without directly saying "cliffhanger". I wonder if this article is now ready for GA-status.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, George Ho (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments ok, will review for GA (whatever that really means) but will hope to give you comments that exceed that requirement. Feel free to ignore.
 * Refs in the lead are unnecessary. Articles should summarise the content in the lead and then expand on it in the main body, so all references should be used in the main body.  That's what FA would expect by the way.
 * ❌ Elvis Presley has some refs in the lead. --George Ho (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - the prevailing trend nowadays is to move refs to the main body. The idea is that, if something is mentioned in the lead, it will be expanded upon and cited in the body. Most FAs with refs in the lead are older ones that passed awhile ago.--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ show me a recent FA with refs in the lead and I'll show you an odd one out. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Disintegration (The Cure album) was promoted as FA in 2008, yet it appeared on May 2012. The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. was a GA in the past, and it was promoted to FA this year. --George Ho (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Umm, I said recent, not 2008! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Katharine Hepburn was GA in 2011 and then became FA this year. I bet you overlooked Brisco County, Jr. --George Ho (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Malmö FF, Warren County, Indiana, and The Entombment (Bouts) can do, as well. --George Ho (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously, do what you like. Go and find a dozen more examples, I couldn't care less. I know it's discouraged.  The lead is a summary of the whole article so why would you feel the need to have references in there since everything you say in the lead should be repeated and expanded upon in the main body of the article?  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Four shortish paras in the lead, perhaps look at merging a bit and making three more substantial paras.
 * "is called by David LaRocca one of the well-known examples of the "delayed romance" theme in situation comedy..." the quote starts late, is "one of the well-known.." included in the quote?
 * "Season 5 finale" is there a reason that "Season" is a proper noun here?
 * "In the fifth season finale, "I Do, Adieu" (1987)" you pretty much said that in the previous para.
 * "In the 1993 series finale" well, you had fifth season, now it's 1993 series... be consistent.
 * "praised as the "famous couple",[5]" makes no sense to me, "mostly praised" with one ref, and "the famous couple". What does that mean?
 * "viewers condemned the relationship for alienating television viewers" repeat of "viewers" is not elegant.
 * " other later couples of other shows, such as The X-Files and Friends," -> "other couples of later shows such as..."
 * ✅. --George Ho (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * George Ball is a dab link.
 * Seems to be an ongoing obsession to capitalise "Season".
 * 1982-1983 needs and en-dash per WP:DASH, check throughout.
 * "becomes consummated but eventually dysfunctional." odd, maybe "is consummated but becomes dysfunctional..."?
 * ✅. --George Ho (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "the episode ends" don't really see a need to pipelink to cliffhanger.
 * ✅. --George Ho (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * " to the unseen character." cliffhanger link again. Odd.
 * No need to link Los Angeles.
 * Critique -> Criticism.
 * "Non-positive reactions" merge with Criticism (it means both positive and negative)
 * Don't overlink Entertainment Weekly.
 * Have you linked Huffington Post?
 * Link the Emmy it won.
 * ✅. 1984 Primetime Emmy Awards can verify. --George Ho (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * " placed them #4 in" see WP:HASH.
 * 50 ditto.
 * Suddenly it's The Huffington Post (and linked). Do it right and do it the first time.
 * "of 26%" see WP:PERCENT.
 * As the article continues, it descends into multiple paragraphs of one or two sentences, sort of like a trivia hit parade.
 * Which key points must I summarize? Which section? --George Ho (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Impact" section is really choppy and consists of multiple short paras. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "04 Feb. 2012." -> "4 February 2012" or "February 4, 2012" is ideal. What is here now is not.
 * Date format is questionable since USEng would be Month Day, Year.
 * Check all refs have suitable consistent fields, e.g. 63, 68 without access dates.
 * Avoid bare URLs in Further reading section.

UPDATE: I have changed the lede, and I have restructured "Development and storyline" section (maybe "Relationship" section). --George Ho (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Needs a re-review here if necessary. I have made changes. Now I'm goaling for GA. --George Ho (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)