Wikipedia:Peer review/S&Man/archive1
S&Man[edit]
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see if this is ready for a Good Article nomination. In my last Good Article review, I felt insulted by the reviewer. After listing less than 10 errors, he did a quick fail because of what he called shoddy prose. He said that Fangoria and Bloody Disgusting are not reliable sources even though they are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#List of potential resources as reliable sources. The reviewer also said that Dread Central (he called it DreadZone) is not a reliable source even though it helped save articles in AfDs. SL93 (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- A couple general comments, hopefully Crisco and I don't repeat the same things:
- When writing, try to leave out unnecessary words, that's a good way to make your prose better. Here, for example, the word "literally" isn't needed, since readers will assume you're using the phrase literally. User:Tony1 has some excellent tutorials on his page.
- Try to avoid repeating words inside sentences, if you can. In the last dif I linked you had: "In order to show the motivations of people involved with these types of films, he shows". See how "show" is repeated? I changed the first to "demonstrate" for variation.
- Phrases like "ended up" and "went on to" can almost always be replaced with pithier phrases, like in this dif.
- In general, a lot of writers use "also" too much, it's usually a good idea to control+F and see how many you can remove.
- If you have two short sentences next to each other, like "The film's title comes from Eric Rost's (Erik Marsicak) fictional S&MAN video series. Marcisak is a friend of J. T. Petty." try to combine them if you can. In this instance you could say "The film's title comes from a fictional S&MAN video series made by Eric Rost (Erik Marsicak), a friend of Petty." Mark Arsten (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)