Wikipedia:Peer review/The Wonder Years/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Wonder Years[edit]

(more info)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is my personal favorite tv show, and yet, this article seems to be poorly written. Parts of it look like they were written by a sixth grader (the Setting section, in particular, is just godawful, particularly the last sentence which frankly makes very little sense). It also seems to be quite lacking in a few areas. For example, there is little to no info about what went on behind the scenes, how actors were cast, etc. This article needs a thorough overhaul if we want to see it get to a good article status. Basically, all I am looking for is for someone more experienced than me (I am new to Wikipedia) to review the article, identify the problem areas of it, and get it to the attention of whatever group(s) (ie. Wikiproject Television) can fix the article in the near future, hopefully ASAP.

Thanks, Twyfan714 (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Twyfan714: The peer review system (like the GA, A-class, and FA-reviews) are meant to have other editors tell you what you need to fix. Don't be surprised if no one pitches in to help you.

Comments from Chris troutman[edit]

This is from WikiProject Television:
  • The article meets the six B-Class criteria:
    • The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional, but not required.
    • The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
    • The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
    • The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously.
    • The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
    • The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
My comments to that end:
  • I agree the long section about the final episode/epilogue should get chopped down considerably.
  • I disagree with the comment you left on the talk page about spoilers; see WP:SPOILER
  • Article needs to adhere to MOS:TV
  • Huge sections of the text are entirely unsourced. An encyclopedic study of the show has to come from secondary sources. It should never be what is gleaned from watching the show.
  • I would consider moving the "supporting cast" section to a "List of Wonder Years characters" type article or cut it off entirely.
  • There should be more discussion of the show's impact, etc. I know it got made fun of in an episode of the Simpsons.
  • Per WP:LEDE the lede should ideally have no sources at all, since the lede should summarize material already in the body. Hence, some of the current lede should be in a "Background" paragraph in the body. The lede will need to be rewritten as you better balance and develop the body, anyway.
  • You have only three sources and a couple disparate sentences talking about the use of music in the show's soundtrack and the subsequent editing since the TV execs are too cheap to pay royalties. There should ideally be more discussion of that, especially since this show is likely affected more than others. (Imagine doing Miami Vice without Jan Hammer.)
  • You have only two pictures. There's nothing else that is public domain or fair use?
  • You have no discussion of the show's production or direction.
It sounds like you want to get this article to B-class, and nominating it for GA after that. It's going to take gathering every publication that ever talked about this show to get it there. Hope that helps. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! I just want to clarify that I didn't necessarily make huge sweeping changes to this article. Rather, I wanted to get a review so I (and others) could get a good idea of where to start. As for my comment about spoilers: I was unaware of the Wikipedia guidelines in that regard. I simply was confused over the inconsistencies in TV show articles. Anyways, I'll try and see if I can edit some things, but as you pointed out, it's going to take a LOT of work! I'll try and do my part though. Thanks again! One last thing: What did you mean when you said, "The peer review system (like the GA, A-class, and FA-reviews) are meant to have other editors tell you what you need to fix. Don't be surprised if no one pitches in to help you."? Did I not follow the correct procedure for a peer review? Twyfan714 (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
@Twyfan714: Your request is fine; no worries. I mention it because typically editors ask for a peer-review because they don't know what else they can improve and they want a "freebie" review ahead of a formal submission to the GA, A-, or FA reviews. It also sounded like you were more interested in seeing the improvement made rather than doing it yourself. It does occur to me that you might try the reward board. You can post a request (like "get this article to B-class") with an max expiration of one year, and promise a barnstar or something like that. It's essentially the only permissible way to hire help. Good luck. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: Thanks for the response! I suppose I'll do what I can to edit the article but also submit it to the reward board as well. That does sound like the only solid way that this article can get improved effectively, because right now it is pretty poor. In the meantime, I will edit what I can do (ie. I have already chopped down the summary of the final episode, and plan on putting in some background info of the show with reliable sources), and I'll see if this article can be saved. Cheers! Twyfan714 (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)