Wikipedia:Peer review/South Park (season 1)/archive1

South Park (season 1)
This peer review discussion has been closed. The FAC result was that this article needs a c/e. ANy suggestions? Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: The article seems to be in good shape, so it would be worthwhile to do another copyediting sweep or two to try to eliminate as many little errors as possible. My advice would be to take the advice of the FA reviewers, in other words. If you've worked on the article for so long that you can't see the errors, which sometimes happens, it's time to seek a fresh set of eyes. PR proper isn't the place to seek a full copyedit because reviewers here are generally swamped with other business. However, you might find someone willing to do this who is listed at WP:PRV.


 * The PR guidelines ask that you wait at least 14 days after a "not promoted" FA to ask for a peer review. This article was "not promoted" on August 8, and yet you asked for a peer review on August 9. As the extended guidelines say, "The basic idea is that editors should look carefully at feedback from any review process, and make the needed changes before asking for a peer review." My guess is that over a two-week period you could probably find and fix most of the remaining glitches in the article without a fresh set of eyes, although a fresh set is still a good idea.


 * Without reading more than the lead and glancing over the rest, I quickly spotted four minor errors. I will point these out, but since I found those so quickly, I'll bet there are more. Here are the four:


 * Captions that are merely sentence fragments don't take a terminal period.
 * The ampersand in "Trey Parker & Matt Stone" should be an "and". (I see a bunch of these.)
 * The date formatting in the Reference section is inconsistent. You need to choose either m-d-y or yyyy-mm-dd and stick with it.
 * Some of the citations are malformed. This is true of citations 40, 41, 42, 43, and 48. These would never survive FAC.


 * One more thought. The reviewers are not trying to give you a hard time when they insist on getting an article as close to perfect as possible. The goal is to produce the best work that we can. That includes the nit-picky prose and Manual of Style things as well as the content, organization, illustration, and other things that are arguably more essential. To get something up to FA and keep it there, you have to try to make all aspects as good as possible. If this is too hard, it's OK. Getting an article up to GA is no mean feat. If you look at it that way, this article is already a success. If you want to do some more lens polishing and get it up to FA, I think you can, but you could also give it a rest for a while and tackle it later. Finetooth (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)