Wikipedia:Peer review/Cane Ashby/archive1

Cane Ashby

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have been working on this article since February of this year, and with much work, it became a good article in April. I would like to continue to work on it and get it to featured article status (FA), but first, I would like to have a peer review done on it to see what areas of the article need to be worked on before it is nominated for FA. Please contribute all comments, questions or opinions; they would be gladly appreciated.

Thanks, Creativity97 21:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• With my observations from others, when adding quotes to the lead, the source of all of them should be named as well.
• Going through it personally, the article was well written. However, I'm not the best at grammar.
• In 2011 departure: "In 2011, Goddard was fired from the soap opera and Cane was killed onscreen, on February 2", I think it should be reworded to something like "Goddard was fired from the soap opera, with Cane being killed onscreen during that episode that aired February 2, 2011", or something similar. Just seems weird to have "In 2011" after the title says 2011 departure.
• There are a lot of commas and the use of the word "and" directly after (", and") in the aritcle. Not sure how others feel, but I feel like it doesn't flow well.
• In storylines: "...beyond the expiration of his visa and fearful of being deported", the last part sounds odd. Maybe change it to "...beyond the expiration of his visa, leaving him fearful of being deported".
• For refs 37 and 39, website names like that shouldn't be in italics.
  • These are just a few comments, sorry I couldn't be more in depth or organized. Overall this article is really good and not too long. I'll try and add some additional comments later. Arre 05:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Arre. They help. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the use of the word "and" and commas (", and"), but this article was thoroughly copy-edited a few months ago. A lot has been added since then, but most of the grammar that was corrected still stands. Also, about adding sources for quotes in the lead, do you mean just the reception type quotes (like the one posted from Canyon News) or the characterization type quotes too? Thanks again for your comments, I look forward to anymore you have to add. Creativity97 16:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• As in "...Though characterized as "mysterious", Cane is "loyal and dedicated" - who characterized him as this?
• As in "... 2011, and" it's awkward when there is a comma and then "and", in my opinion. But that's just my reading of it.

I have a few other comments:

References

• BuddyTV shouldn't be in italics
• Refs 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 15 (you might wanna check this & fix it up; "page not found..."), 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 38, 40, 41, 42 & 43 -- they all lack publishers and certain details here and there. Go through them all.
• Also, a lot of refs are inconsistently formatted. Things like Soap Opera Digest should be in italics in all cases; "Sony" should never be in italics (it is in some places, isn't in others), etc. Things like MSN TV also shouldn't be in italics. Please go through all refs and make sure all of the sources mentioned are in the correct format, and have publishers. Also make sure that if available, they all have author's names, dates, etc. It would be helpful. Another thing, SOD and SOW are linked a lot, not sure if it needs to be linked that many times. I usually, when working on an article, try to only link once and don't link the rest...
• After checking all refs....Refs 15 ,8, 14, 16, 32, 37, 39 -- they all don't work (they are all "errors" when you try and access them). Try and find them all again and make sure to archive them instantly, because you can never be sure with Sony's Y&R website. I'm not sure whether or not you are able to just remove the link and leave the citation or not, you'll have to ask someone. If that's the case, then this shouldn't be a massive issue.
• After going through this article a couple times, It's very well written and does deserve to become a featured article eventually. However, if you are planning to take it to that stage, the refs will definitely need to be sorted out, they just aren't acceptable. A lot of ref work should be done here.
  • Hope these comments could be of help. Arre 13:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again for your comments, Arre. They definitely help. I will take some time to sort out all of the refs using the comments you left here. I'm unable to do it now, but when I get the time, I will be sure to do it. Thanks again. Creativity97 02:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)