Wikipedia:Peer review/Trapped in the Closet (South Park)/archive1

Trapped in the Closet (South Park)
I've done some serious changes to the article lately, but it still need some work to get a good article status, what do you think? Michaelas10 (T|C) 16:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Lead needs work regarding this as the episode that got scientologists angry. Wiki-newbie 17:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Michaelas10 (T|C) 17:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Two Part Review, Part one, an in depth report on the GA review, and then a comparison to the Featured article Criteria:

GA review:
 * 1) Pass; Lead section could still be improved and betterr cited
 * 2) Solid Pass; problems here
 * 3) Solid Pass
 * 4) Weak Pass; would have appreciated to see more references
 * 5) Stable; No problems whatsoever
 * 6) Pass, plenty of images

FA Criteria:
 * 1) A) No, this will come with time

B) Yes, this was what most impressive in the Ga review

C) BIG GAPING HOLE, when the prose is re-written to be improved, this will be an evident flaw

D) For FA standards, this should be improved

E) Yes, the article is stable


 * 1) A) again, this needs to be improved

B) Yes

C) Yes


 * 1) Yes
 * 2) No Way; needs more info

Other Comments:
 * Divide the headers into sub sections
 * MORE INFORMATION PLEASE!!! This article has 5 Sections, of which only 2 are actually part of the article.
 * Even of those 2 sections, only one of them is without a spoiler tag
 * This is far, far, far away from FA status

-- Wikipedia's  False Prophet   holla at me   Improve Me 18:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what section should I write, sections like "trivia", "quotes" and "crew" would make the article listy and non-comprehensive, while a "response" section would be very difficult to write as the most of it is already included in the lead. What should I do? Michaelas10 (T|C) 17:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I poked around and found This, which tells you how to structure a TV show article. Hope it Helps, Wikipedia's   False Prophet   holla at me   Improve Me 00:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, it's for television shows, not episodes. The television episodes WikiProject does give ideas for extra sections but I can't make both of them due to lack of online information and lack of examples. Michaelas10 (T|C) 10:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not that into TV articles, but here's the guide the article to follow, WikiProject_Television_episodes


 * As I already said, I can't make both of the extra sections due to lack of online information and lack of examples. Michaelas10 (T|C) 15:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry then, If you can't meet the wikiproject standards, there's no hope of it being an FA. The article lacks actual content, and I am debating if wether to take your commen seriously and ask for a GA review because when the topic is to narrow to be a FA, the standards are stricter.  This isn't ment to be rude, but it's fact.  Wikipedia's   False Prophet   holla at me   Improve Me 02:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problem, they did say 'Omit if none exists.' Michaelas10 (T|C) 08:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a HUGE PROBLEM


 * I didn't find any sources for a production details section and the episode doesn't have much of significance to the series, there is no major plot change or anything like that. Michaelas10 (T|C) 20:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Automated 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.
 * Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, 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.
 * Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day.
 * Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
 * Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&amp;nbsp;mm.
 * Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * 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.”
 * 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 inbetween. 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 the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.
 * Also, the second paragraph in the intro should be cited, but adding the template causes the paragraphs to run together. What I am saying is there's no chance it could be a FA unless you add information.  Wikipedia's   False Prophet   holla at me   Improve Me 20:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)