Wikipedia:Peer review/The Green Green Grass/archive1

The Green Green Grass

 * 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 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 July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it is the only section I believe the article fits into. Anyhow, I believe that The Green Green Grass article is nearly top standard and would like to be shown where the article lacks in areas, so that I can improve it and nominate it for featured article.

Thanks, The Music Collector (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this has had a lot of work done on it, but needs some more work before it is ready for WP:FAC. With FAC in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many articles in Category:FA-Class television articles, some of which are on series and could be good models.
 * WP:LEAD says the lead should be no more than four paragraphs in length - this is five.
 * The article has about 10 fair use images - there is no way this will get through FAC with that many fair use images - see WP:NFCC
 * Biggest problem with this reaching FA as I see it is a lack of references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref, but the whole Origins section has no refs (except for the quote box).
 * The refs that are there are often incomplete in terms of the information provided. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. Another example is the current last ref "Radiotimes – 30 May to 5 June edition (Sunday at 5.10pm)" which does not give the year. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * See WP:WIAFA for the requirements for FA - 1a, professional English, is the hardest criteria for most articles to meet. Language here is OK, but needs to be more encyclopedic in tone in palces - for example however, one more successful sitcom was still lurking in the darkness.[9] needs to be rewritten.
 * This is about a work of fiction, so please read WP:IN-U carefully to avoid writing about things from an in-universe perspective.
 * When introducing nicknames like "Boycie", spell out the full name first, then give the nickname. So for example this could be added to to read something like Set in Oakham in Shropshire, it stars John Challis as Aubrey Boyce, a gentleman farmer [known as Boycie], ...
 * Provide context for the reader - so add the year or dates to the lead where it says It was announced in The Mirror, that the series had been axed,[6] however it was later revealed that the series had been shelved... - see WP:PCR
 * Be consistent - for example Only Fools and Horses is italicized usually, but is not in at least one place.
 * ALso avoid WP:OVERLINKing - Only Fools and Horses is linked five times in the article - three is the max (lead, infobox, and first time in text after the lead).

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). I do not watch poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)