Wikipedia:Peer review/Degrassi: The Next Generation/archive1

Degrassi: The Next Generation

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

I've listed this article for peer review because… I did this all the wrong way, because I took it to FAC in December (it failed), then a GA review in January (it failed!), and it has just been given GA status. I'd like to take it to Featured status, so any comments are appreciated and addressed. The article is rather large too (101kb), so any ideas on how to shrink it at all would be good.

Thanks, Matthew | talk | Contribs 22:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PeterSymonds (talk · contribs)

First few comments as I'm about to go to bed, but I was struck by how excellently referenced the article is!

Be careful with overusing adjectives: "...the development of the new series took a new direction."
"...((which had by that time spun off Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, and Star Trek: Voyager)..." Is there any need for this sentence? (Perhaps keep the Next Generation one for obvious reasons, however;) I'm not a great Science Fiction fan, but isn't Star Trek series essentially made up of those?

I would say the Star Trek franchise was, and that each incarnation is a series of that francise, but I changed it.

"the producers decided to create a website..." I think it would be better to use the direct past tense, so "the producers created a website..." It flows more easily I feel.
"the producers decided to create a website with a "virtual school" that fans could "enroll" in, ensuring a steady stream of e-mails from their classmate characters." At the moment, that sentence is referring to the producers getting emails from their classmate characters. :)
"and buzz about ongoing subplots." A bit colloquial. I would say "and discuss ongoing subplots" or something.
"threatened the owner of a Degrassi fansite with a lawsuit to hand over the ownership of three domains" I think more needs to be said on why they were threatened, because it's not clear.
"producers instead settled on another domain www.degrassi.tv." I wouldn't embed external links in the main body of the text. I would instead move it to the footnotes, eg. "settled on another domain name.<ref>[www.degrassi.tv]</ref>
"The two-part pilot episode, "Mother and Child Reunion" brought back many Degrassi Junior High and Degrassi High actors for a ten year high-school reunion, and also introduced four new students to Degrassi Community School." Needs a citation. Also, I think this sentence is introduced too suddenly, because the two-part pilot episode isn't discussed earlier, so the text seems a bit unrelated to the rest.

I removed it completely. The same information is provided in a better way in other places in the article.

Anyway, more to follow; I'll get back to it tomorrow. PeterSymonds | talk 22:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks so far! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Collectonian (talk · contribs)

A few things I noticed in my first scan, and keeping FAC in mind:

All of the cited stuff in the second paragraph of the lead should be part of the reception. Remember, per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the article. In a main article of this length, a cited statement should be rare as it should already be supported by the article body.
Following through with that, the intro needs rewriting per the TV MOS and WP:LEAD to better summarize the article. (and why is 131 bolded?)
Had the article been copyedited?
Throughout the article, I noticed there a few questionable sources that do not appear to meet WP:RS, most particularly degrassi.ca (an unofficial fansite)

Production section

There is a picture of Emma noting she inspired it...any particularly reason the picture is of Emma from a later season, instead of from episode 1?
Double use of "inspired by" when image says inspired by Emma but text says inspired by Star Trek.
What does the fansite threat have to do with the original concept?
Are the last two paragraphs in the Executive producers, script-writers and directors necessary? Can that whole section be restructured? The first paragraph of "Executive producers, script-writers and directors" could be move to the top of the section as a lead out, then move into concept (without headers), and then maybe mention the executive producer and the like (without the credits and header). The episode format section could also worked into a longer main production section. The other three sections are fine as subsections.
Several statements from all of the production section seem to be unsourced and most of "opening sequence" seems to be unsourced.

Cast

Unless the section can be expanded to explain why each particularly actor was chosen for their role, are the character qualifiers necessary? Can the section be expanded to include the reasons why various people left and were added?

Will look at other sections later. Collectonian (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hi Matthew, a big one to review! Some comments...

I think when I checked earlier you had one dead link...
"131 episodes " why in bold? and I assume one has been made and not been aired since the infobox says 132 episodes.
"Inspired by the original Star Trek science-fiction television series, which had spawned Star Trek: The Next Generation in 1989)," rogue closing parenthesis...
"1979-1992" use the en-dash here.
"girls' and boys' " why italics?

That's my starting offer, more after lunch... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]