Wikipedia:Peer review/Sveriges Television/archive1

Sveriges Television
I've given this article some work, but I don't think it reaches GA quality yet. I know there are some thin sections and typos, but I'd like to know if there is anything else that should be added or if there are any general thoughts. Väsk 15:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As you said yourself, the article consist of thin sections which almost make it feel "listy". Images are not too good, I could probably take a shot of their new fancy waterfront building in Gothenburg and add it to the article. Few footnotes, todays wikistandards almost require +50 notes to make it a GA. --Krm500 18:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the BBC article (which is similar and has GA status) and it also gives a "listy" impression. My problem is that I have trouble finding out how I should approach this listyness and what subjects may need more explaining. As for the number of notes, it would be helpful if someone could point out what needs references. I agree that some images are of low quality. It may also be slightly overcrowded with images in some areas. Väsk 19:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 20:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
 * When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
 * There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * is considered
 * might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 14 additive terms, a bit too much.
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * The script has spotted the following contractions: aren't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]