Wikipedia:Peer review/The Powerpuff Girls/archive1
The article is good but not great and I and others would like this article to be the first to be given a Good Article status for the Cartoon Network project. Just a few pointers as to what we can tighten up and expand upon. No automatic peer review suggestions please, we plan to action upon those soon. treelo talk 11:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
*Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actioned: As mentioned, we will be editing the article to fufil the automaed peer review.
- I don't do this much, so I'm just going to run through my impressions as I have them. I like the opening, it does a good job of keeping the real world context. In the History section, the powerpuff vs. powderpuff sentence seems awkwardly worded. The character bios hold little interest from me, since I haven't watched the show. Moving on to the Episodes section, is there a story behind one episode being unaired in the USA? If so, an explanation of it seems warranted in the main article. In the DVDs section, some prose explaining what these releases are would be very helpful, since the table is a bit unclear (or possibly incomplete). Then, there are more DVDs after the Awards section. This whole area could use some restructuring. Then, references. Shrug, not much to say about them. Gnfnrf 20:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Review by Midnightdreary I don't think this article is ready for GA just yet, though I don't know what the standards are from the WP:Cartoon Network. Here's my two cents...
- The intro can be expanded on. As per WP:LEAD, it should serve as a stand-alone mini-article.
- Overview: I would suggest putting the Setting section as a subsection of this, as well as the info on the opening/closing sequences. The line "The show is one in a long line of cartoons that derives a great deal of humor from pop culture parody and satire" is original research. The line "It has a highly stylized, minimalistic visual look, reminiscent of 1950s and 1960s pop art" should have a cited source for a similar reason.
- History: This is the article's strongest section, simply because it has so many sources. Keep looking for more and see if you can expand (see my last note, too).
- Characters: I'd consider having a separate article for the main characters and only putting very brief information here. There's already a "Minor characters of the Powerpuff Girls" article, which may suggest room for a "Major characters" article. Editors may notice if this section is removed, there's not much left in the article (see my last note! :).
- Episodes: I'd consider taking off the bullet-style and just sticking with a single paragraph of prose here. Think about it, anyway.
- I'm not an expert on TV articles here on Wikipedia, but I think right away that the whole article is sorely in need of more out-of-universe discussion. I think, say, production of the series and critical response should be a pretty weighty part of the article. For this one in particular, I'm sure you'll find information on its popularity, merchandising, etc. You have some information under "History" which could be expanded on. Make sure you've taken a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write about television programs and consider the article on Sesame Street (a featured article) as a sort of guide. Notice how many sources that article has (I'm guessing, though, that Sesame Street has a few more readily available sources; you might have to put some extra work in). Throughout this article, avoid single-sentence paragraphs. My suggestion is that all paragraphs should have at least three sentences; that's just good prose. Well, anyway, I hope I was helpful. Best of luck to any dedicated editors on this article! --Midnightdreary 19:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)