Wikipedia:Peer review/Spider-Man/archive1: Difference between revisions
→Spider-Man: doing |
→Spider-Man: Ruhrfisch comments |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Thanks, [[User:BOZ|BOZ]] ([[User talk:BOZ|talk]]) 19:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks, [[User:BOZ|BOZ]] ([[User talk:BOZ|talk]]) 19:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
'''Ruhrfisch comments''': This seems to be not too far from GA, here are some suggestions for improvement with GAN in mind, and FAC eventually. |
|||
{{doing}} [[User:Ruhrfisch|Ruhrfisch]] '''[[User talk:Ruhrfisch|<sub><font color="green">><></font></sub><small>°</small><sup><small>°</small></sup>]]''' 21:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*There are seven fair use images in the article, which does not seem to meet [[WP:NFCC]]. A lot of the images that are used are also fairly pedestrian - I was surprised that there were some fairly iconic images of Spidey that were not used - the half Peter Parker face / half Spiderman space when his Spidey sense is tingling, or the upside down pose with crossed legs (which also appeared in the film) or perhaps the black suit / Venom. |
|||
*The lead needs to be a summary of the whole article per [[WP:LEAD]]. As an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However the comparisons to Robin and Bucky are only in the lead, as is the EMpire Magazine award (as two examples). |
|||
*[[MOS:HEAD]] says not to include the name of the article in the headers, so "Non-Marvel versions of Spider-Man, and parodies" will have to be changed, perhaps to "Non-Marvel versions and parodies" |
|||
*Parts of the article are quite well done, and other parts need a lot more work. For example the Creation and development section is really nice and well cited, but the Non-Marvel versions of Spider-Man, and parodies section is choppy, mostly unsourced and fairly poorly written. |
|||
*Article needs more references in many places. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. |
|||
*Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{tl|cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:V]] |
|||
*The article uses {{tl|cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{tl|blockquote}} instead. |
|||
*The Commercial success section seems sporadic in its coverage for a history - the Creation and development section was very thorough, but the history is less clear after that. The relative lack of material might also be a [[WP:WEIGHT]] issue. |
|||
*I do not know of any other sources on my own, but I note that a quick look on Google Scholar finds a fair number of title that look possibly useful - see [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Spiderman&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGLJ_en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ws here] |
|||
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at [[Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog]] (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, [[User:Ruhrfisch|Ruhrfisch]] '''[[User talk:Ruhrfisch|<sub><font color="green">><></font></sub><small>°</small><sup><small>°</small></sup>]]''' 02:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:54, 26 September 2009
I've listed this article for peer review because I did work to get this one up to GA, and I know it has the potential to eventually get up to FA. Any suggestions you can provide would be helpful (where to look, any books you know of). Anything else you think this article needs to really help it shine, be bold and speak up.
Thanks, BOZ (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: This seems to be not too far from GA, here are some suggestions for improvement with GAN in mind, and FAC eventually.
- There are seven fair use images in the article, which does not seem to meet WP:NFCC. A lot of the images that are used are also fairly pedestrian - I was surprised that there were some fairly iconic images of Spidey that were not used - the half Peter Parker face / half Spiderman space when his Spidey sense is tingling, or the upside down pose with crossed legs (which also appeared in the film) or perhaps the black suit / Venom.
- The lead needs to be a summary of the whole article per WP:LEAD. As an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However the comparisons to Robin and Bucky are only in the lead, as is the EMpire Magazine award (as two examples).
- MOS:HEAD says not to include the name of the article in the headers, so "Non-Marvel versions of Spider-Man, and parodies" will have to be changed, perhaps to "Non-Marvel versions and parodies"
- Parts of the article are quite well done, and other parts need a lot more work. For example the Creation and development section is really nice and well cited, but the Non-Marvel versions of Spider-Man, and parodies section is choppy, mostly unsourced and fairly poorly written.
- Article needs more references in many places. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
- Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
- The Commercial success section seems sporadic in its coverage for a history - the Creation and development section was very thorough, but the history is less clear after that. The relative lack of material might also be a WP:WEIGHT issue.
- I do not know of any other sources on my own, but I note that a quick look on Google Scholar finds a fair number of title that look possibly useful - see here
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)