Wikipedia:Peer review/The Russell Brand Show (radio show)/archive1
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
It is my aim to get this article to Good Article standard, and I would like some constructive comments about the content of the page and the amount of referencing on it and how I could expand the Lead section would be much appreciated.
Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: Here are a few suggestions for improvement:
- It's hard to remember all the things that should go into a citation. An easy solution to the problem is to use an appropriate citation template found at WP:CIT. For example, you can copy-and-paste the whole set of "cite web" parameters from that page and, in article edit mode, insert it where you want a reference superscript number to appear in the text. The cite web template will remind you to include at least the author name, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and accessdate, if these can be found. Even if not all of these are known, it's good practice to fill in as much of the information as you can. For your first reference you currently have only title, publisher, and url, but the publication date, 26 October 2006, appears at the top of the source page, and you can easily add the latest access date, 15 June 2008.
- Every claim that might reasonably be questioned should be sourced. An example of an unsourced and questionable claim in this article is "However, Karl mysteriously disappeared from the show leaving some to speculate about a falling out between Pilkington and Brand." The speculations of persons unknown don't belong in an encyclopedia. A claim like this must either be attributed to a reliable source, not a "some", or omitted. Even though you hint at a source later in this section, the whole section is unsourced. In other words, the article's claims must be verifiable.
- To make the article stronger, I would look for sources other than blogs or the BBC, which might be seen to have a self-serving point-of-view problem in comments about its own shows. I don't know this field, so I can't suggest specific sources, but I think it likely that critical journals that carry reviews of radio shows must exist.
- I looked briefly for a model that you might look to for guidance among existing GA or FA articles about radio shows but found no radio shows. Even so, looking at something like Last of the Summer Wine might give you some ideas.
- I suggest explaining or wikilinking any unfamiliar terms or jargon. Examples of terms not all readers would understand are "podcast", and "one-off".
- At some point, you might seek a copyeditor to help with MoS issues. I see quite a few, such as the bolded show titles, which should instead be inside quotation marks as in "Jingle Race War".
- Done the unbolding of show titles.
- I would delay re-writing the lead until any major revisions to the main text are finished and then follow the guidelines in WP:LEAD. The lead is essentially an abstract or concise summary of the whole article.
- I hope you found this review helpful. If so, please consider reviewing other articles, particularly the ones in the backlog pile, which is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)