Wikipedia:Peer review/Saturday Night Live (season 34)/archive1

Saturday Night Live (season 34)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to improve it to featured list status, and would like to be aware of what other (maybe even uninvolved) editors think of any article issues, and the article's writing.

Thanks! StewdioMACK Talk page 12:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review by Rationalobserver

 * Lead
 * This season is notable for its take on the 2008 presidential election, which saw the show's ratings rapidly increase and a number of award nominations.
 * That needs a rework. I'd say, "This season is notable for its coverage of the 2008 presidential election, which led to a significant increase in the show's ratings and a number of award nominations."


 * History
 * This season consisted of 22 episodes rather than the usual 20
 * I think you ought to specify that "this season" means season 34. I know it's kinda self-evident, but the start of an article should introduce terms as though the lead is not there.


 * This made it the longest season since the show's second season. The season
 * Copyedit to avoid three "season"s in these two sentences.


 * which typically have started during the final weekend of September or in early October.
 * It's always good to include a citation at the end of each paragraph.


 * Mad TV ended in 2009 after its fourteenth season due to low ratings and a dip in quality brought on by budget constraints and mediocre writing.[2]
 * This strikes me as too POV to be presented in Wikipedia's voice. I watched Mad TV religiously, and that season was easily their best, IMO.


 * Election
 * I see two citation needed tags here, and these should be dealt with asap.
 * Cast
 * ''Midway through the season ..."
 * This paragraph needs a source.


 * Episodes
 * before the goodnights
 * This might be too informal.


 * Queen Latifah appeared as Gwen Ifill and Tina Fey returned as Sarah Palin in a parody of the Vice Presidential Debate
 * Missing comma/run-on. The article could use some double-checking of the punctuation in general.

It's not bad overall, but it needs a copyedit for prose and punctuation, and lots of unsourced material needs to be verified and cited. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Conclusion