Wikipedia:Peer review/The Lion King/archive4

The Lion King

 * 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 October 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 October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because alot of work has gone into this article within the past several months and I am going to make my final attempt at getting this article to FAC status. Feel free to provide any suggestions that you may have and I will address them in a timely manner. I will leave the review open until the other major contributing editors that have helped me with this project all agree that it is ready for a FAC nomination.

Thanks, DrNegative (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement, looking at from an FAC viewpoint. 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; 00:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Lead should be expanded per WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
 * Expanded lead a little to include notes on reception and revenue since these were notable. DrNegative (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There are 8 fair use images - how does this meet WP:NFCC?
 * Article needs more references, for example When adjusted for inflation, however, it is the fourth top-grossing animated film (after Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, One Hundred and One Dalmatians and Fantasia). My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Done. DrNegative (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of the refs used seem like they might not meet WP:RS - for example IMDB is a problematic source in some cases, or what makes lionking.org a RS?
 * There are a fair number of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and also several short sections - can these be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve the article flow?
 * Songs as a bullet list seems choppy too - can it be made into prose (de-list-ified)?
 * The prose could stand some polish - can you find a copyeditor or print it out and read it out loud?