Wikipedia:Peer review/Smallville/archive1

Smallville

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it's been 2 years since it was last reviewed (for anything, that includes GA), and the page has been expanded quite a bit since that time. I'm looking for feedback on just about everything.

Thanks,   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments: Haven't been here in a long while, and I can already see quite a bit has changed. Here's just a few things things I noticed: That's about it for now. The article looks fine, and there are no obvious issues (although the plot section could be expanded).  Corn.u. co.pia  •  Disc.u s.sion   04:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead could probably be expanded to summarize most, if not all, of the article.
 * Cast section could do with an image of the cast. If you don't want to use a fair-use image, you could add individual images of the actors (which would be free images).
 * Could the crew changes section be expanded? I remember reading something about the change in writers in the second season article.
 * Critical reception could be expanded to cover later seasons as well, although I do know of the lack of reviews. ;)
 * Ratings could be given their own section, with a brief explanation of the table, a la Friends.
 * Any additional images would be great.


 * Yeah, I haven't had a chance to revamp the lead. It's always last on my list. As for the cast, Clark, Lana, Lex, Chloe and Lionel all have articles (pictures there), and the rest are on the character list page with pics for the majority of them. A fair use image couldn't really be justified for this article (not sure if really is justified for the list article), and we'd clutter the section is we put in free images of everyone (or even a couple of them). The only writer change in season two was the creation of a writing staff. I'm not sure how much actual "changing" went on. A couple of new people came on board (but without a reliable source discussing such a thing, and I've never come across one just talking about the addition of new writers), but just about the same people from season one were there in season two. The thing is, you're asking for expansion of an already large article. I've already had to cut the plot stuff, and the cast stuff down to bare bones because it was needlessly repeating what's on other pages and bloating this page. It's already sitting at 102 kb (with actual size in readable prose at 51kb). That's pretty large, and there aren't really any sections that can really be split off on their own. As a matter of fact, I should probably cut some of the strictly season one reviews out, and allow the season articles to act as the publisher of the season reviews. The page would become obscenely large if we tried to cover each season in the reception section. I agree that the table could be explained a bit more. Not sure about separating it. Would probably need to create a new section header and then a subsection header for the non-table information (Started testing that out). All images have to meet fair-use requirements, so I cannot just stick pictures in the article if I cannot justify their use. Even free images need to have a basic rational of use (just not as rigid as the non-free ones).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, well that was all well explained. I think everything is okay now, but if any additional (free) images become available, it would be great to see them. :)  Corn.u. co.pia  •  Disc.u s.sion   04:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would actually love to get (though I don't think they've ever done one), a free image of the cast together. That would be awesome (kind of like how the Buffy article has). P.S. I have expanded the lead of the article substantially, so it now covers just about everything.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just saw; looks excellent! :D  Corn.u. co.pia  •  Disc.u s.sion   03:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)