Wikipedia:Peer review/Days of our Lives/archive1

Days of our Lives

User:Elonka and I are trying to work to bring this article up to good or featured standard. It's in flux right now; half of it is sourced and sourced again, and the other half are remnants from the previous versions. I would like advice as to what to do from here to bring it up to a higher standard (any new sections to add, which ones to remove, what/how to source other sections). I've rewritten the lead to comply with WP:LEAD, and Elonka helped move a lot of extraneous information to daughter articles. If any of you have edited television articles and moved them to higher standard, that would also be a plus in helping us. Thank you. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 07:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Observations by J Milburn

Not quite sure how peer review works, but here comes some comments:

• It would quick-fail a GA review- none of the fair use images have rationales. That needs sorting ASAP.
• Some refs have spaces in front of them. Only a little thing, but it should be [Fact]. and not [Fact]. or [Fact].
• The table of opening titles is unreferenced, which could constitute original research.
• The opening music and Friends sections are also unreferenced.
• In fact, quite a lot of it is unreferenced- I think you are going to need to work on the references at this point. Every statement should be referenced. Well, should have a reference connected to it, if a whole paragraph is referenced to the same thing, you needn't put the same reference at the end of each line.
• I have never heard of this programme before, but, I instantly thought of Pygmoelian, an episode of The Simpsons where they parody it. Now I get the joke! You mention the programme in Friends, and I am sure that it will have been referenced elsewhere on top of a single Simpsons episode. Perhaps it is worth considering placing information about other references? However, I would advise you to be careful, that kind of thing often lets down good articles. See Battle of Normandy for instance...

Right, I hope that has given you a couple of things to consider. J Milburn 08:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I know it's not ready for a GA at all. I want more comments to help me edit to eventually get to that point, which you have provided. Let me read over them and see what I can do about everything. Thank you! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 08:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to put a checklist here and edit it when I've completed the task. 08:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fair use rationales for pictures: Resized pictures that were too large, and put fair use rationales on every picture. 11:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Spaces before references: Done. 08:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Referencing opening titles table: Done. I used Beth's Days Page, which is still a fan site but it's fairly neutral, very comprehensive and one of the most highly regarded and trafficked, with over 8 million visitors. 09:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Referencing opening music section: Referenced as to who wrote it. Could not reference 2004 section, searching for sources turned up nothing, but...it DID HAPPEN. I was watching the show then. How do I get past this problem? 09:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC) I since reworded this section, but still lacks source. 12:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Referencing Friends section: Done. 10:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Laura Horton is redlinked, as well as Ken Corday, and Margaret DePriest. And some others. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Elonka wanted them to be redlinked for a bit, but I can remove them. What do you suggest? Yes? Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 22:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed all red links. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 23:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My take on it:

• The "Days in other media" and "Famous fans" sections strike me as pretty marginal trivia, even though they are cited.
• The "Best remembered stories" section title should have a hyphen in it, I feel.
• The infobox says "Alternate titles — Days (referenced as DAYS in some publications)". Is mere full capitalisation of the alternate title listed there really worthy of a note with reference?
• The article switches between calling the program "Days of our Lives" and just "Days" randomly. This could do with being made uniform throughout the article one way or the other.
• The article also uses "AW" to refer to "Another World", I think, which I feel would be too confusing for someone who has never heard of Another World.
• In the box of opening credits, it says "save for the removal of the copyright notice of said titles". Using "said titles" in that way is not plain English and could be improved, perhaps to "save for the removal of the copyright notice from the bottom of the screen" or something like that.

That's about it for now from me. - Mark 04:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the first bullet point, because to make these sorts of articles featured, you have to show their impact on people and pop culture, which those sections accomplish. Since Soap Opera Digest uses DAYS and not Days, yes, I do think that needs a citation. Please tell me where it switches and how we should do it uniformly. Days should be the uniform throughout the entire article, just to be simple. I can change the AW references. The copyright notice thing will be changed, too. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Frutti di Mare

Hi, this is a very well-written article, but I see some problems, especially with the use of sources. Here are a couple of points about the lead and the "Storyline" section, to be going on with.

1. Bell being credited with saving the show from cancellation doesn't deserve to be in the lead, IMO. The lead is supposed to summarize the article. The mysterious little factoid of Bell saving the show (save it why, where, how?) doesn't summarize anything in the article text, or even in the source—in fact, the source, a very brief obituary of Bell, has even less info than your lead (there's nothing there about the cancellation having been "imminent"). I've removed it, plus done a little general copyediting of the first sections, please see what you think and note some minor requests in the edit summaries.

   Looks good, thank you.  :) --Elonka 00:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

2. I don't think "which critics immediately panned, as it was seen as a departure from more realistic storylines for which the show had originally become known" is borne out, much, by the sources given. I expect the statement is true, but could you find something more like a "panning" to source it from? And with some suggestion of a comparison with former realistic storylines? The current references in footnotes 15 and 16 ain't it.
3. "Best-remembered stories." Not a good use of a source (Jason Bonderoff). In the first place, you rip off Bonderoff's wording too much; while probably not a copyright vio, I would call it plagiarism. Secondly, to claim that the storylines mentioned "were most remembered by viewers", in a serious tone as if it was a statistical fact, with a note pointing at Bonderoff, is just misleading. I checked out the source, expecting some kind of survey of what viewers do remember... but no, Bonderoff simply makes a personal selection of the storylines that he thinks are "unforgettable". The whole section needs to go back to the drawing-board. Is it wanted at all? It's very unshapely to have the "Storyline" section consist of text one level higher, plus this one subsection. Not good structure.

   I'll try to be back with more comments later. Good luck, the article is in some ways very professional! Frutti di Mare 13:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC).

A little more:

• "Cast": note 31, this photo page, is an odd source for the 27 actors and the 40 actors. Am I supposed to count the people in the photos..? Could you find a more professional source? I don't mean that the site is unprofessional, but that the photo page is, for this purpose.
• Consider this sentence: "The cast stayed more or less at this size [meaning 11 actors] until 1974; by this time 27 actors were in different storylines, as the show planned to expand to an hour in length." I don't understand how the statements before and after the semicolon can both be true. 27 isn't, not even "more or less", the same size as 11. I have rephrased, on the supposition that you meant "at" this time rather than "by" this time.
• Er, the show "planned" to expand to an hour in 1974? Very anthropomorhic of it... and why talk about plans in any case—did it expand to an hour or not?
• "Days in other media? Not to quibble or anything, but TV is TV. Friends is in the same medium as Days. Can you phrase the heading differently?

Good point. I've changed it to "Cultural impact." --Elonka 00:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• "Famous fans": I have to agree with Mark that this section is excessively trivial. (I don't agree about Friends, though. That section gives a certain perspective.) You say that it shows the "impact on people", but what's really needed to make the article FA quality is cultural context on a much higher level. Impact on famous people is gossip rather than context. Can you perhaps find some more academic media analysis that's pertinent? Frutti di Mare 20:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC).

For now, I've merged that section into "cultural impact" and rewritten it a bit. I'll also search for better sources. --Elonka 00:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

(/Me talks to self.) "Thanks for your review, Frutti di Mare. I may address your points some day." —"You're welcome, Frutti di Mare." (/Me cheers up.) Frutti di Mare 09:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC).

So sorry! Your comments came in right as I went out of town to give a talk, and my work on Days got backburnered a bit. And I'm not sure where Mike went to. I do, however, appreciate your careful review and very thoughtful comments. Looks like I've got more reading and researching ahead of me!  :) --Elonka 00:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)