Wikipedia:Peer review/Survivors (2008 TV series)/archive1

Survivors (2008 TV series)

 * 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 January 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 January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. Although it's a relatively young article, it is well referenced and avoids in-universe prose. It would be good to get some more eyes to look at this with ideas for how to improve the text, new content that could be added and suggestions for where to find further references.

Thanks, Deadly&forall;ssassin  23:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Sgeureka
 * Unless the lead says something really controversial, refs should generally not be used in the lead
 * Done: References shifted to the body of the article


 * Refs should be ordered by increasing number. (The agreement, which was signed in 2007, took months of negotiations.[6][2])
 * Done


 * Try to combine one- or two-sentences-long paragraphs with a bigger paragraph.
 * Done with the most obvious problems in the production paragraph, rest of paragraphs make better sense, with the exception of the differences section


 * Refs belong after the punctuation (the maternal protagonist and moral compass[8],)
 * Done


 * Some editors feel that summarizing differences between two works of fiction is original research if sources aren't privided. I agree in as far that sourcing helps to weed out nonnotable differences that only hardcore fans would notice, or which generally put undue weight uon differences. Thus, it may be advisable to find some sources for the section "Differences from the source material" needs sources if you can find them.
 * Done I'm luke-warm on the section as well, but didn't want to face the moans if I removed it.  I have found a few sources which corroborate.

– sgeureka t•c 23:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't comment on the prose as I have only skimmed the article, but concerning comprehensiveness and structure (ignoring the points above), this looks pretty much like a Good Article already.