- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is close to good article but needs that extra push. I can see some unsourced material and a lot of red links.
Thanks, LizzieHarrison 16:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, but I think it needs a lot of work before it is ready for GA. Here are some suggestions for improvement.
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - the lead should be longer too, probably four paragraphs per WP:LEAD.
- Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but the BBC HD fact seems to only be in the lead.
- My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but many of the section headers are not in the lead at all.
- The article may need fewer sections / headers too - for example, could the Christmas specials all be in one section?
- Biggest problem I see with the article is a lack of references throughout. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref, but there are whole sections without a ref.
- Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed, but current refs 42 to 52 are just title and publisher. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- The article has many paragraphs and even sections that are quite short (one or two sentences) - in almost all cases these should either be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve flow.
- The article is inconsistent in its presentation of material. For example Series 1 and 2 seems not to have their own articles, and Series 1 has almost no explanatory text, just a series of lists / tables. I would have an article for each series and have the main tables of contestants and order of finish etc. in the sub-article (the tables do not need to be in both places). See WP:Summary style
- The statistics section also seems like it could split off into a separate table (if this even notable at all).
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)