Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Trek: Deep Space Nine/archive2

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

 * See also Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Trek: Deep Space Nine/archive1.

This article has come a long way and is currently approaching critical mass, but still needs some more sourcing and (as mentioned before) book sourcing. However, in addition to general opinions, I'd like to focus on the reference system. For instance, the DVD extras are not consistent; in one I have "Westmore, Michael. Interview conducted on..." and another, with multiple references, simply says "Source: Whatever DVD extra". How should I go about integrating these? I could change "References" to "Notes" and, after listing the DVD extras in the References section, put notes stating who the interviewee was and what date (which is included in all interviews). Alternately, we might simply genericize all the DVD extras, i.e. remove specifics about who and when the interview was. Simply put, I'm not sure how to tackle this.

The other thing is in (what is currently) footnotes 9 and 15, two websites are listed in each note. Should these be changed to "formal" footnotes with "Last name, first name. Blah blah blah..." and included as separate? On #9 that would seem to be redundant, but I'm aiming for consistency, so as stated above, maybe I should scrap the last name, first name formality. Again, not too sure. Moulder 01:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like the lists of main and supporting characters chould be removed from the main article because 1-they are already discussed in paragraphs about the main and then supporting characters and 2-there is a link to a sub article which seems to cover the same ground as these two lists. I did a preview edit removing the two lists and it took out about 7kb of material.--Dekkanar 02:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Great idea, and yeah, that would make it a lot cleaner; the main cast is covered in the text and the recurring characters who aren't discussed are in the sub-article. It's also bugged me that people kept changing or adding on to the ranks part of the table, so this will solve that. I hope someone comments on the references issue though. Moulder 10:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)