Wikipedia:Peer review/Galactik Football/archive1

Galactik Football[edit]

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

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 August 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been tidyed up after being tagged for no references just want to know what else cna be done ot improve it, if it ok to have it reviewed for B class

Thanks, Andrewcrawford (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. *The lead should be 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. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. The article may need fewer sections / header too. Please see WP:LEAD

Article needs to be written from an out of universe perspective - see WP:IN-U A lot of the information in the article seems almost too trivial / fan-cruft-y for inclusion. Do we really need tables of their win-loss records per season? Or what about tautologies like Main Base of Technoid - Technoid's base of operations [4]?
Avoid one or two sentence paragraphs by combining them with others or perhaps expanding them. Ditto for many of the sections. I owuld also avoid see Main article when these are red links.
There are many missing sections - what about critical reception or DVD releases? See any FA animation article for ideas and examples to follow.
Several things need refs. 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. Also has almost no independent third-party sources. See WP:CITE and WP:V

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]