Wikipedia:Peer review/The Muppets' Wizard of Oz/archive2

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz[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 October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been cleaned up and polished, and I just want to know what everyone thinks of it after all this time it has been worked on.

Thanks, Limetolime ^{Talk to me} ^• ^{look what I did!} 02:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very nice article—I especially liked the plot section's prose. I did a readthough of the page and you may wish to review the changes. My only problems are with the "reception" section, to which I added a couple 'needs source' tags. "Despite an overwhelmingly positive viewing response, the same could not be said criticially." Okay, you have Metacritic and a bunch of "critical" reviews, so the latter part of the sentence is fine. But where is the first part backed up? You mention four reviews that were positive, but surely these do not represent the general public, nor are they written by less formal individuals than the negative reviews. And if a review is written by a fan and someone whose job is to professionally criticize television and/or film, does that not fail our guideline for reliable sources as self-published? I have not taken the time to review each source, but I am automatically skeptical of the credibility of the sources that do not have Wikipedia articles. Later, it says "The cameos by Quentin Tarantino and Kelly Osbourne received mixed to negative response" and you go on to talk about two reviews that commented on the cameos. Are these the "mixed to negative response"? If so, that introductory sentence should be removed. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks better after the changes, but there is still one more sourcing issue. Twice in the article, it says that it premiered to higher ratings than expected, but there is no citation to back up this claim. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it? In the first paragraph of the reception section, one part reads "Despite a better-than-expected viewing response". What was who expecting? –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, looks good. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should be expanded with a plot synopsis and details on reaction. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]