Wikipedia:Peer review/The Daily Show/archive3

The Daily Show
This peer review discussion has been closed. I'd really like to work on bringing this article back up to Good Article status. I've done a little work already, but any suggestions/ideas/advice would be really appreciate. Thanks, Shoemoney2night (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Previous peer review
 * 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 July 2008.
 * 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 July 2008.
 * Well, I think it's pretty damn great as it is. Have you seen the recommendations made on the talk page of the article? It gives the reasons the article was delisted as good. I noticed that there are quite a number of statements that are not referenced: many more statements than you find in the average article ARE referenced and it's generally very good but there still remain quite a few which are not. I guess if that were addressed it might please the quality reviewers quite a lot. That's the only thing I would fault it on. More pictures would be a bonus but I realise ones we are allowed to use would be hard to come by. --bodnotbod (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the review! Referencing is definitely high on my list of priorities right now. -Shoemoney2night (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're most welcome. It's just a shame there aren't more people offering suggestions. Tell you what, when I submit this text I'll put a plea for more input in the 'edit summary' and perhaps a few people will see it on 'recent changes' and come and say a few words. --bodnotbod (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. While this is good, it needs some more work to get to FA quality. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Article needs more references - for example the first, third, and sixth paragraphs of the Current format section have no refs now. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. Current refs 28, 44 an 59 are just links with titles. The further reading sound like things that should be refs for stuff in the article. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Per WP:Summary style, there should be a brief summary of the awards at the Awards section (not just a link)
 * I found the organziation of the article a bit unclear, especially towards the end. For example, Correspondents, contributors, and staff seems like it should come before the very end.
 * Thanks so much for your comments, it's a huge help! -Shoemoney2night (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are some more thoughts from a second look: Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR. For example, explain here that the correspondents in the field segments previously were always faked - just the actor in front of a special effects screen: During the week of August 20, 2007 the show aired a series of segments called "Operation Silent Thunder: The Daily Show in Iraq" in which correspondent Rob Riggle reported from Iraq.[7]
 * Would it make sense to rename "Current format" to just "Format"? Then start with the original format and then describe the current format? Chronological order seems more logical to me. I would also rewrite the Studio section in chronological order - it flows better.
 * The show has (and has had) some fairly well known comedians on it and has given career boosts to several of these. For example Steve Carell is mentioned only once and his name is not wikilinked then. Perhaps the Correspondents, contributors, and staff section should mention some of these previous cast members.
 * Per WP:MOS, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. "upright" can be used to make vertical images smaller.
 * Thanks again, you've been a really big help and it's hugely appreciated. I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with regard to the studio section, though - it appears to be in chronological order already to me. Cheers, -Shoemoney2night (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words and I will try to clarify. The studio section's first sentence starts with the current studio (present), then talks about the move to this studio in the second sentence (past). Then it mentions the old studio (now for the Colbert report) in the third sentence (more distand past) and then returns to the current studio for the rest of the section. Since the discussion of the show itself starts with Kilborn and moves to Stuart, why not start with the original studio (and give its location), then mention the move and its transfer to Colbert, then talk about the current studio? That is what I mean by chronological order - not start with the present and then work backwards. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Cinemaniac comments: I've been tracking changes to the article that you've been making, and I must say that your contributions have been excellent. I particularly like how you've been able to balance out the positive and negative criticism the show's garnered over the years, as well as your adding of images and your creation of subpages. Not really much I can add to what the other reviewers have already said, but, due to my experience in the GA process, I definitely must stress citing more references, although you appear to already be on that. Other than that, I think you've given the article a vast improvement and I see no reason why it can't pass GA. Heck, the way the article is now, you could probably just skip GA altogether and try for FA status. In any case, if you need any other assistance in this matter, I'd be happy to provide some. Good luck! Regards, Cinemaniac ( talk  •   contribs   •   critique ) 19:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the comments, and the encouragement - I really appreciate it! :) -Shoemoney2night (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)