Wikipedia:Peer review/Treehouse of Horror V/archive2

Treehouse of Horror V



 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 03:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed. This looks to be close to FA status. Hopful I can nominate it after this PR. Buc (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Buc (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This was one of the older episode pages I did, but it does still look pretty good. The lead needs expanding for sure, and there should be some more reviews, consider it is often regarded as of the best ever. I'd probably get rid of most of the plot images as well. I'll see what I can find on Newsbank about the episode. Gran2 18:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll give a small review tomorrow if I can, but I was wondering, why wouldn't Gran2 nominate the article, when he did most of the work on it? The article is also still a bit away from FA status.  Hell, it doesn't even have all the commentary information in it.   xihix  (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You basically answered your own question there. But what is commentary information? Buc (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really feel like listening to the commentary again. Why don't you give it a go?   xihix  (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wha...commentary? you've lost me. Buc (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you make a note about this peer review and request comments/feedback here, at the talkpages for WP:DOH, WP:COMEDY, WP:US-TOON, and WP:TV ? Cirt (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * 1) 4 fair-use images is pushing it a bit much. I'd reduce that to 2, or at max, 3.  Cirt (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) *Any segestions on which I should lose? Personally I think the lead one is the worst of all. Buc (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) **I see you reduced it to 2 images, 3 might have been okay, but it looks good. Cirt (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) WP:LEAD - Waaay too small, not enough plot summary, doesn't really mention/summarize the other sections at all. Cirt (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) *I've exspanded the lead. Buc (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) **Lead looks much better. Cirt (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Great work so far, I will take another look, I think there are still a couple areas for improvement. Also, the Production section would be helped by including a free-use image of someone who worked on the production staff on this episode, perhaps David Mirkin or David X. Cohen, with a relevant caption about their work on the episode. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Query
 * Yeah no respones. I think I'm just going to nom it since no one seem to be giving feedback. Buc (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)