Wikipedia:Peer review/Science fiction on television/archive1

Science fiction on television
Looks fairly good to me. I expanded lead, added a few references and photos, balanced sections and I would like to hear your opinions if this is FAC ready. One thing bothers me though: isn't this article really about the History of science fiction on television? There is almost nothing regarding the technology, the economy, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:38, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "definiton" is missing an "i". I see at least one format issue where an entire section has been italicized. Might I suggest that where there is a linked year, it could instead be linked to year in television. For example: 1962 . The history format works for me, unless there are some specifics that are universally true across the entire time period. The page is getting quite enormous though, so I suspect it will need to be broken into separate pages at some point. &mdash; RJH 17:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding the year, that's a good suggestion, but don't do dates like April 4, 1962 – it doesn't allow the user's date settings to appear normally. I would suggest just doing "year in television" when the year alone is mentioned. Spangineer &#8734; 21:54, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * FI don't see an italicized section nor the mispelled word, could you fix such minor things them when you see them? The year in tv is a good idea, I will see to it when I have some time. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What? No mention of Red Dwarf? Granted, it was funny - but it was also Science Fiction on the television... WegianWarrior 10:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Added Red Dwarf, tnx. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A good article overall, I corrected a few typos and gramamtical errors but nothing major. Some aspects to your treatment I would give further consideration:
 * Humor is often an integral part to even the most solidly-grounded science fiction work. Look at Star Trek and The X Files as just two examples of this concept.  Shows like Futurama (and even The Simpsons at times) function as more of an homage to sci-fi than to merely use it as a "vehicle for laughs."
 * Good point, fixed.
 * I wouldn't consider SeaQuest DSV as being "intelligently written," nor does it exemplify your point that a show can make an impact even if it only runs for one season when DSV ran for three. This show (imho) is an example of the "lowest common denominator" form of sci-fi.
 * Deleted most of the praise, it was self repeating anyway.
 * I don't recall seeing the Dune miniseries mentioned at all. This is a an area your article might want to delve into a bit, i.e. "What can television accomplish that a novel or even theatrical release of a particular story can't?"
 * Hmmm. I will have to think about it. If you have an idea where to put it, go right ahead.
 * I'm not familiar with the term "po-faced" as appears at the end of the paragraph dealing with Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
 * Neither am I, deleted.
 * You may want to consider breaking your analysis into sub-sections, i.e. Sci-Fi, Fantasy, and Horror as these are generally-recognized differentiators within the overall genre.

--Lordkinbote 17:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It was divided by countries when I found it. It would require a major rewrite to change it, although it might be beneficial. Let's see what others have to say about it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)