Wikipedia:Peer review/Trapped in the Closet (South Park)/archive2
I would like to hear suggestions on bringing the article to FA or A status, including prose, styling, sources, etc. Also if anyone has further sources for interviews please provide them. Michaelas10 (Talk) 12:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- For my part I will attempt to work on prose and copyediting, but of course other help would be appreciated as well. I created a "to do" list, which we can use to focus our efforts towards bringing the article towards FA status. Is "A" status technically above "GA"?? I had thought that since GA required review, and A did not, that A was lower? At any rate, I think the article is already "A", and can be brought up to "FA" by implementing the "to do" list... Smee 18:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
- The article uses a non-std. size of 200px, most television episodes use 250px. I personally find anything less at times too small. The infobox also violates MoS:L (South Park is linked in the lead-in and the infobox, they're almost practically right next to each other). The article also uses four fair use images. The Reviews section contains user reviews from IMDb and TV.com, these should probably be avoided, not only because they can change at any time, but because they're also not really very "notable reviews". You should seek out critic reviews (Try this search). The episode article is also in possession of a redundant "nav. box" (these are slowly being phased out), that should probably be removed. The plot section is well written, however (as I've requested prior (the request seems to have vanished, mind..)), note II will require a citation, "Tom Cruise locking himself in a closet is a reference to rumours of Cruise's sexuality", what rumours? How is it a reference? Television series titles also require italics (as per MoS:T). Finally the fair use rationales appear to be slightly weak in my opinion, episode captures should also state how they are fair use, e.g. "The image illustrates the scene in which x does y, this is notable because z[..]". Matthew 18:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- The picture is 200 × 155, and increasing it any further might result in visible pixels. MoS:L isn't a policy, thus it can't be "violated". It also doesn't mention template linking, and there appears to be an acceptance templates are an external part of the article. I did not manage to find any non-user reviews which provide ratings, but I will look if there is anything useful to add from those who don't. There isn't a limit on the amount of images in one article claimed under fair use. Navigation box removed. Definitions don't require a reference, and the following sentence links to a section which provides references for each controversy regrading Tom's sexuality. All the series titles in the article are italic. The rationales don't necessarily need to explain the image's content, but rather an explanation on why is it important (e.g. "illustrates an important point of the plot which is being discussed inside the article and helps identify the characters"). Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Your answers do not address any of my (valid) concerns, addendum: "illustrates an important point of the plot which is being discussed inside the article and helps identify the characters" is a very weak fair use rationale and likely non-valid. Matthew 19:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I believe I've addressed all your valid concerns, and specified those which cannot or shouldn't be fixed. The provided rationale is quite a strong example; if you have anything to strengthen it somehow, it'll be very appreciated. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Images
- I changed the images from 200px to 250px (excluding the infobox picture). Please let me know how it looks on your respective browsers - mine looks great actually... Smee 21:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
- The reviewer meant specifically the infobox image. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thumbnail images should not include a pixel width, it conflicts with user preferences. Jay32183 18:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)