Wikipedia:Peer review/Scrubs (TV series)/archive1

Scrubs (TV Series)

I've listed this article for peer review because its just been assessed as being a high B, and would like to know what can be done to bring it up to GA standard, and eventually make it a FA Thanks, Jac16888 14:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the assessment comments you can begin improving the article by converting the lists of cast and crew into prose. I also strongly recommend starting a critical response section.--Opark 77 16:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by converting the cast and crew into prose, you do mean into straight paragraphs right? Surely that would be a detriment, as it would make it harder to read, and go against the standard for lists of cast, which generally are just that lists.--Jac16888 19:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is correct actual sentences and paragraphs instead of bulleted lists. It would definitely not be a detriment to the article. You can't get to FA status with long lists like these. Prose makes the article far more readable. If you want to list the cast for functional reasons then do that in a separate article. To someone who has never heard of scrubs a list of cast members tells them little and is quite boring. Introducing the actors and characters one by one with a brief description tells an unfamiliar a lot more in a more digestible manner.--Opark 77 19:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i've tried to do this for the main cast, what do you think? If its ok i will do it for the supporting cast section too--Jac16888 22:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit had since been reverted so I've had a go myself. I've used your prose but have completely removed the bullet points in favour of a paragraph per character.--Opark 77 09:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the revert was to rewrite the material in an encyclopaedic manner; unfortunately, I didn't get that far yesterday. (Sorry!) I've now rewritten the entire section in paragraph form. Please check it out and see how it flows. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is very short considering the length of the article. Check out WP:LEAD for guidance in expanding it or have a look at some of the other featured articles associated with WP:TV at this link [1].--Opark 77 16:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i have attempted to to do this a bit, but looking at it, it seems that the synopsis section here actually seems to contain much of the information you might find in the lead section of an article, should i just move it up above the TOC, although having said that, the article is actually missing a Plot section, which, i'd appreciate it if others editors attempted , it's something i'm not great at.--Jac16888 22:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that seems reasonable.--Opark 77 09:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've re-read the synopsis - it is mostly an attempt to describe episode structure. Perhaps you could summarise this in the lead but a lot of it is very specific for the intro. I found another useful link for guidelines on what to put on the lead - Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write about television programs.--Opark 77 09:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At present the article has a very fragmented feel, like a scrap book of everything connected with the show thrown onto one page. Credit for the amount of references, but I wouldn't rank it as a high B -- much work needs doing before GA.

There are too many lists and short subsections. 'Production details' should be expanded. 'Crew' is a meaningless list. The most important personnel should be integrated within the production section in context.
The music section is very long, and the section 'Featured musical contributors' is unnecessary. Since music does play an important role in the show, perhaps a daughter article might be best, so that the material in the main article might be cut down and more manageable?

At one point, some editor copy and pasted the whole music section into a seperate section, which was promptly AFD'd and redirected back to the main page, the music section doesn't have enough notability for its own article, see here--Jac16888 22:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame. I'd still lose the bulk of it from the main article. Obviously talk about the theme song, but lose the paragraphs on individual artists. The JPS ^{talk to me} 08:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Along with the bitty-feel, there are many aspects that I'd expect to see on a fansite, not an encyclopedia. For example, the title of the section 'Around the world' is informal, as opposed to 'International broadcast', or similar. 'Cameo appearances' is unnecessary as is Charlie Brown's Christmas.

Hope this helps. Good luck. The subject certainly deserves a GA article. I hope that some of those doing the monkeyesque redirects can do something more challenging and really improve the encyclopedia by actually contributing to writing this. The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]