Wikipedia:Peer review/Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1)/archive1

Avatar: The Last Airbender (Season 1)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is only B-class and I am not sure where to go with it so I want to ask for some advice. Thanks, — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 02:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did some copy editing. In the second paragraph, what was the demographic? Production could use some expansion, maybe you can get some from the main Avatar page. It's OK if there is some redundancy between them. A reception section should also be created. It's easy to find reviews of seasons. For instance a google search for "avatar airbender season 1 dvd" turns up articles like this. Keep up the good work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Collectonian (talk · contribs)

Some initial thoughts:

Production should be above the episode listing, and the secondary section is unneeded - creating episodes = production; the DVDs seem to have several behind the scenes features, but I don't see them being used in the production section. Planned future expansion or do they just have no usable info?
Awards should also be above the episode list, converted to prose, and if possible rename to reception and include sales and viewership information
The DVD table is too detailed. I'd remove the contains column, make the airdates separate columns and specify the Region of release rather than NTSC/PAL; it also needs sourcing along with its lead in prose. For one way of doing this, particular the table format, take a peek at List of Meerkat Manor episodes and List of Trinity Blood episodes. Those both have each in separate tables, but a single table be fine too, with columns for each region. If you want to know how many episodes or which episodes, you can also have a column just listing x-y for the episode numbers, rather than listing full titles. Also need to wikify the full format dates in the prose.
Summaries do not need sourcing, so all those need to come out. It just clutters the table and make the article appear to be using more sources than it really is. Any other links to the transcripts on that fansite should probably also be removed and it does not seem to be an official site nor does it seem to have any endorsement or permission to post those transcripts online, which seems to be a violation of WP:COPYVIO.
The first sentence of the first episode summary is nearly word for word from IMDB. Can that be reworded a bit to make it more distinct?
For the episode table, the headers should be set to a different color to stand out more (#CCCCFF is most commonly used), and the table background set to white for more contrast and easier reading of plot summaries.
When doing cite web, you don't need to add format HTML nor language=English to citations

Seems to be well on its way to be a potential FL. :) Collectonian (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about moving the production and award sections above the episodes section, considering that: 1) The list topic is the episodes, so shouldn't they be first? and 2) Other FL's put the episode section first. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 14:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With a regular episode list, yes, but this is not a regular episode list rather it is a season page/episode list hybrid. As such, the sections belong above the episode list to give emphasis to the real-world aspects. For examples, some other FL season/episode hybrids: Lost (season 1), Lost (season 2), Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 1), etc. Collectonian (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I almost said the same thing about section ordering, but Smallville (season 1) has the eps first. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]