Wikipedia:Peer review/ITC Entertainment/archive1

ITC Entertainment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

The article has been around for a while now with several editors working very hard to contribe a large amount of information and I think the article is now at the point where I'd like to see it getting Featured Article status. It's one of the first articles I created on Wikipedia from scratch, so I'd be very proud to see it as a FA.

I'd very much like to get feedback particularly on the content of the Productions and Logos sections. I think the logos section is the weakest section of the article - it's descriptive but not actually very clear. However, adding more images might muddle the page more.

I'd also like feedback on the general style and length of the article. Anything that anyone would care to offer would be greatly appreciated and welcomed.

Many thanks, Howie ☎ 23:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eddie6705 (talk · contribs)

First of all there should be a more than just 1 reference. If you want FA or even GA, the article should be heavily referenced.
~~'formed as a joint venture with Jack Wrather in about 1955'- the exact date should be listed.~~ Done Howie ☎ 17:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~'to Lew Grade about 1959-60'- same here.~~ Done Howie ☎ 17:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In producions, 'British' doesn't need to be linked. If it needs a link it could be earlier in the article where the UK is mentioned.
TV should be tv.
~~The FANDERSON link should be in the form of a reference, not as an exernal link within the text.~~ Done Howie ☎ 17:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Although links to a category, the List of ITC Entertainment programs section could be expanded.~~ Done Howie ☎ 17:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A thorough read through, checking grammar (particularly commas) and overall wording, would be advised.

Hope these pointers can help. Eddie6705 (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eddie, thanks for taking the time to look through the article. I'm working my way through the changes you have suggested, attempting to add references and adjust wording where necessary. Obviously I don't expect FA or GA status overnight - I'm quite willing to put the work in to get this done though! I didn't realise that TV should be tv - is this a Manual of Style thing that I've missed? Thanks, Howie ☎ 17:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You need more sourcing for this article, and the way you're using your sources needs better formatting. The link you give for the abbreviation BFI leads to a disambiguation page.
Lots and lots of things that need sourcing to something besides the company's website
What makes http://www.bvws.org.uk/405alive/info/itc.html a reliable source per WP:RS?
The lead section is too short.

As the article stands now, I would not pass it at GA. 22:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth, thanks for your feedback and comments! I wouldn't expect it to be a GA at the moment... that's why I'm asking for other people to help edit it, however I seem to be the only editor on Wikipedia taking any interest in it - despite the huge number of people who edit articles related to British television and the fact that this company had an output of over 35 years. I don't know where to go to get more people to help out - that's why I came here; I was bound to get some sort of feedback! I am here so that it can get there and because I recognise that it needs work to achieve this; I certainly wasn't adding the article here because I believe it's ready for GA.

I do have a couple of questions regarding your comments:

The link to the BVWS site may look ugly and like an early 1990s homepage, but it is actually the archive website of the long-running journal 405-Alive. The journal is published by the British Vintage Wireless Society and the particular article actually states that the contents have been taken from officially published ITC promotional material. I would hope that it would be an accepted source?
Can you inform me what is wrong with the formatting of my sourcing?
The company does not have a website, so I don't know what your mean about "something besides the company's website"; could you clarify that for me please? Or where you referring to the BFI link?
I'm really stuck on how to expand the lead, other than by adding info that already exists in the article later on. Could you recommend a way to do this in a non-repetitive fashion?

I hope I don't come across as unappreciative - I just am trying very hard with this article, but writing it almost entirely alone with the limited information I can find. Most articles that get up to GA or FA standard usually seem to get there through a large amount of user collaboration. I need a lot of help with this, so I'm trying to squeeze as much info from anyone as possible! Howie ☎ 23:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I thought the BFI/etc link was the company page. And as for the lead, the lead summarizes the whole article, so it does indeed repeat information already in the article, think of it as cliff notes guide to the article itself. It should never give information that isn't in the article itself. See WP:LEAD for more information. The formatting, you can use <ref name=(name)></ref> to name references and combine them together so that you don't have more than one listing of the same web page. Several of these refs are duplicates. You really should avoid abbreviations in the footnotes also, especially the BFI one, since looking at the site/page it looks like the publisher is BFI Screenonline. The 405-Alive site, was that article published in the magazine? If so, you probably should format the ref as a journal article. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]