Wikipedia:Peer review/Smallville (TV series)/archive1

Smallville (TV series)
Several editors, including myself, have been trying to get this article in-line with other featured articles for television series. Certain topics seem harder to address than others because of the nature of the show. We need to atleast get it to GA-status but it seems that we are kind of stuck at the moment.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  03:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Davey4

 * You have done a top job with Smallville. I just have a couple of thoughts. Looking over it, there are heaps of very short paragraphs that could be merged into the main headings for easier reading. *In "Production", I would really just merge "Filming", and put it before Sperboy stuff. The "Music" section seems out of place in "Production" - I would put that in "Other media". Also, the season one poster would be more relevent in "Production", as the current image is blurry and not as relevent imo. Also, ensure there is not too much over-linking (ie. Cloverdale, Lana etc.).
 * "Smallville universe" is an akward heading imo, as does "Allusions" really in-universe? Or episode format? Good info, but could be arranged a little better maybe. Not a huge fan of "Series history" - I say we just write it out like a plot summary-ish thing. Also, an unfammilar reader might get confused by some characters/locations - for example (spoilers - "Season 5 introduced several classic mythos elements such as Jonathan Kent's death, Fortress of Solitude, Professor Milton Fine (James Marsters), also known as the villain Brainiac, the Phantom Zone, and General Zod"....what are these things/people, why are they special?):
 * "Cast and characters" is good, but can we get a season one cast image as well? Fail that, I think a Brainiac or 'Justice' image would go well in the paragraph below. Yeh I know, we shouldnt clutter, but just a thought.
 * "Reception and awards" is good, but it doesnt mention how comic fans, critics like it? "DVD releases"is fine.
 * "Other media" should be more comprehensive (isnt there books and stuff as well?)
 * Also..."On January 24, 2006, it was confirmed Smallville would be part of the new The CW's Fall 2006–2007 lineup once The WB and UPN ceased separate operations and merged as The CW in September 2006. Season 6 began on September 28, 2006,[21] but a Season 7 has yet to be confirmed." should be included in a new section on "Broadcasting" with international info. I would be happy to help out if you think anything here can be of use to you. Davey4 07:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The music is part of production, that's why we placed it there. It wasn't just something for marketing purposes, it's part of the creation. We don't explain who each of those guest characters are because they have their own pages, that is why they are linked. It would create too much information for such a section if we were to explain who every DC comics character was that guest starred. If you go to the Talk page, you will see that I provided a "plot-like" summary of the entire show, instead of the seasonal breackdowns. No one replied to it. I know we need to expand the reception section for critics, for wouldn't comic fans fall under that unmeasurable information? How can one accurately measure "comic fans" or any fans? The only thing I can think of would be to get a Neilson Rating for the series, but I'm not sure where to find that. I've seen some articles have them, but I don't know if we should and where to get it.   BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  13:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Avt_tor

 * Detail in lead: Second paragraph has detail not about the show per se. Certainly a casual reader of this article would be looking mainly for information about the show itself.
 * Detail in "Production" section: I'm really not sure that two paragraphs about how the show was greenlighted is important here. This level of detail belongs in a subordinate article.
 * Development (which is what it is, but it isn't large enough for its own section) is apart of production. It's relevant to know (IMO) that the show wasn't the initial choice for WB. We've trimmed what used to be a lot of needless details about the unproduced Batman show. Bignole
 * Saying this wasn't WB's first choice doesn't need two paragraphs. Seems like secondary detail to me. User:Avt_tor
 * It isn't two paragraphs. The information about the nonproduced Bruce Wayne show, that lead to the production of this show is 1 paragraph and it's a thin one at that. If there is something I'm missing here, could you copy what you are referring to and paste it in the talk page (so as not to boggle this area down).Bignole


 * Music section: Seems like there could be a lot more detail, there should be a link to a subordinate article here.
 * I agree on expanding, but it already has the links. It just doesn't have a "see also" link, but simple wiki links to the subordinate soundtrack articles. Currently, there isn't enough overall music information to support a page about the general music for the show. Bignole


 * Allusions: another good spot for a subordinate article, though mainly I would separate the last part of the second paragraph, which discussions links to the films, as its own paragraph as that's a distinct topic of its own.
 * There was already an article about the "allusions" and it was deemed to lack notability on such a detailed (meaning listing every allusion) scale. That is why it is a summary of how the show uses allusions to other media's reflected by either their subject matter (Superman) or its stars (James Marsters). Bignole
 * I don't know the history, but I know that a show that has been six seasons in a long-established franchise has got to have lots of allusions to past material. I consider this background material, which makes it very appropriate for a subordinate page and much less so for the main page. I will happily argue the case for a subordinate article here. User:Avt_tor
 * I wish I could have shown you what the "subordinate" page looked like, but since it's been deleted I cannot. We turned it all into prose here because Wiki isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. We should only know that the show constantly alludes to Clark's future self throughout the entire series, with a couple of examples that are generally an every episode thing. Bignole


 * Smallville universe references: There's a lot of detail here and hardly any reference links. (Wikilinks are okay, as long as the pages linked to are specific to the overall subject and have reference links.)
 * I'm not clear about what you are referring to on this one. Bignole
 * No citations in section 2.1. No citations about kryptonite in section 2.2. Links to super strength isn't specifically about Smallville. Hardly any citations on links to super strength, super vision, and heat vision, making this whole section poorly sourced. User:Avt_tor
 * No citations for 2.1? It tells you his powers, which are verified via the episode. I can write out video citations for each thing, but that's generally what the links to the episodes are for, so that they can read the plot of each one where the power first appeared. There is verifiability beyond watching the show. It isn't subjective because the entire episode literally explains it is a power that he just developed. The only thing I can think of is providing a citation for every episode listed directly to the CW website where another episode plot summary is. What citations for kryptonite are you looking for? Again, this is a "watch it for yourself" kind of deal. There isn't a subjectivity to the effects of kryptonite on him, the episodes pretty much say what it does. You cannot source "super strength" and "super speed" like it's something that can be actually attained. If you are challenging the verifiableness of whether he has this abilities, then again I saw "watch the episodes". That's like saying, "there's no citation for Tom Welling playing Clark Kent". So, again..if I'm missing something here please copy and paste it on the talk page so that I may see directly what you are referring to. Bignole


 * Season One: This cursory paragraph is too short; implies that very little happened throughout the season. (My recollection is that basic characterization and relationships were established; surely a few sentences is called for here.)
 * Cast and characters: Not quite saying this is too long, but the character summaries include bits of POV spin. Even words like "loving" (mother) and "devoted" (father) are somewhat subjective (and inaccurate to the extent that they are limiting).
 * I take it that the "guest characters" subsection is fine? Bignole
 * It's reasonably concise; I have no suggestions for improvement. User:Avt_tor


 * Series history: is about the right length and is reasonably well-written, but is almost completely subjective. The main article links to season articles that link to a fan wiki, i.e. no authoritative references in this chain. Fan wikis are notorious sources of original research. It's a basic flaw with the whole section. Linking to season articles that link to episode articles within Wikipedia, of which the episode articles have a single reference (cite video) to the episode itself (so any other editor can go back to the same source, and where editors could also cite other published reviews or other reliable sources) would be much better.


 * Let me expand on this: If you don't want to have the articles on Wikipedia itself (and I don't approve of the way some not-very notable shows have very lengthy Wikipedia articles), the season episode summary article would be where the sources go. I don't object to linking to the Wikia articles, but linking the episode title itself to the Wikia article creates a level of credibility that is not appropriate. Stick a little "external link" list at the end of each episode and link to it there; allow other editors to link to other episode summaries if they wish. (As user-entered sites go I would consider TV.com to be better because of its huge user base; that's why there's a tv.com field in the Television infobox template.)
 * You aren't making since about this. What exactly is the subjectivity in those sections. You aren't citing examples so it's hard to follow what you are referring to. They are overviews, so linking to a page that expands the overview does not discredit it. Many times even featured articles link to pages that are hardly well written, and it would take forever to only link to other articles that are well referenced. That isn't the point of linking. What exactly do you feel needs referencing? You don't reference a plot for a film, that's what watching the film is for. I think I need some examples of what you mean so that I may better understand your opinion and make the appropriate corrections. Bignole
 * The individual episode titles link directly to the Wiki articles, making the latter look like an official extension of Wikipedia. You're using summary style directly from a non-Wikipedia site, without so much as a footnote. Doing that would require other editors to edit the non-Wikipedia site to justify changes to Wikipedia itself; that breaks consensus. It wouldn't matter, except that the whole section on the main page is in turn summary style from the season articles. Like all other articles, episode summaries should be subject to consensus and/or sources, but linking directly off-site breaks that. User:Avt_tor
 * The link to Wiki articles so that someone can see what the episode was about, and not just one tiny event that occurred. What summary style is directly from non-Wiki? Bignole


 * Awards: grouping several different awards into two prose paragraphs is hard to read. I'd like to see a bullet point for each category of awards. (Also the Saturn awards are completely bogus and should be listed last, if at all, not at the top. And I would have mentioned the Hugo nomination somewhere briefly.)
 * Listing is usually avoided, especially on pages that are featured. I agree it needs work to flow better, but if we start a "list" then we will open ourselves to every tiny award the show has been nominated for. Bignole
 * I suppose opinions differ, I think prose-ifying a list is what looks awkward, and adds to word count. I think that consensus can establish a standard of notability for awards; prose isn't going to stop people from adding whatever they think is important. Seems to me you haven't been shy about reverting additions that you think don't fit. If there are a sufficient number of awards to warrant, a separate page for awards could be created. If you must use prose, I'm not seeing the logic of the paragraph break. User:Avt_tor
 * I've gone and looked at some FA tv shows, and some use the prose and some use the list form (tables or bullets). We originally had the list form, but consensus wanted it to be more prose. Paragraph break? I don't know why it's there. Bignole

That's all I've got. This is not far from GA status. I'm thinking it might have been useful to discuss this on the talk page before submitting to external peer review; more experts on the topic could be found there. Avt tor 21:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 23:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)