| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because...it's a biography of a non-human animal, plus it’s a little bit film history, social history, and biology too. Many of the primary sources about Joe Martin are potentially unreliable because they were, by nature, promotional and aggrandizing, although I’ve tried to cast a wide enough net that some of that is ameliorated. This snagged original research and unreliable sources tags during the DYK promotion process. I think I’ve addressed the issues but would love additional input. Ideally I would eventually work toward Good status as appropriate.
Thanks, jengod (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Z1720
edit@Jengod: Comments after a quick skim:
- The length of the article indicates that a longer lede might be needed.
- Watch out for MOS:SANDWICH in the images
- "Film Ape Lovable, Is Testimony in Suit for 40 Bites ¶ The question as to whether "Joe Martin,"" This paragraph is uncited and I am confused about the formatting of this paragraph.
- Avoid short, one or two sentence paragraphs, as there are a lot of these in the article.
- The article relies on quotes a lot. Try to remove some of these and instead summarise the information. This will make it more appealing to the reader.
- Try to have each section be 3-4 paragraphs to make it more appealing to the reader.
- Hatnotes are typically at the top of the section under the heading, not between paragraphs. See WP:HAT
- Ensure that there is a citation at the end of every paragraph, minimum.
- The "Miscellany" should be renamed, proabably to "Legacy"
- Read through the article and remove inforamtion that is off-topic or to specific for the average reader. The article should be an overview of the topic, not a list of all available information.
- Images should probably not be in the "Notes" section.
- Off-topic links should be removed from the "External links" section. Unless directly speaking about this topic, it should be removed.
I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Longer lede ✔️
- Avoid squished-up photos❔ - I tried! but I edit on my phone and switch back and forth to desktop mode to check formatting but it’s hard to know how it’s laying out on a huge screen.
- longer paragraphs, fewer quotes, ~4 grafs per section - ✔️
- hatnote placement - ✔️ - I reduced the use of hatnotes dramatically, turned one set into a category, and located them at the top of sections
- citations at end of all grafs - ✔️ - I think I got them all but am still double-checking myself
- Misc. v. Legacy - ✔️ I eliminated everything in Misc. except the comic and renamed the section
- Remove insignificant information - ❔I killed what felt like dozens of babies but of course I’m too close to this article now and probably still much to sentimental about it all. But I did eliminate lots of trivial elements and boring parts.
- Remove image from Notes ✔️
- Remove off-topic links from External Links ✔️
Thank you so much for your guidance User:Z1720. All very good suggestions. jengod (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- The MOS:SANDWICH comes from too many images in the article. Since there are so many great images for this article, I suggest removing the ones that are of lower quality, newspaper articles, and remove images that are not of Joe Martin if there is another one in the section that has one.
- Captions can be shortened. For example, "A frame of Joe Martin and Gale Henry in episode nine of Detective Duck and Lady Baffles (1915), preserved by the Library of Congress and now in the public domain" The caption doesn't need to say its in the Library of Congress or that it is in the public domain. Instead, that information will be in the file's summary (accessed when someone clicks on the image).
- WP:REDEX has excellend exercises on how to reduce redundancy in your writing. This will lower the article size and allow more information to be included.
- Remove information that is not directly pertinent to this topic, and perhaps move it to other articles.
- There probably shouldn't be an image in the "Further reading" section as images are supposed to provide context for the prose, and there is no prose here.
- Watch out for original research. Ref 124 supports a plot summary of a movie, but the ref is to the actual film. This means the person who put this information into the article interpreted the film and included the information. Is there a plot summary of the movie somewhere else that can be cited instead? Same with ref 166: I couldn't find the credits where it says Joe Martin appeared, and ref 97 doesn't say that Joe Martin's footage was cut, as it is the film.
Hope this helps. After GA, since there is so much information here, you might want to consider a FAC run. Z1720 (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)