| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article has developed well on the topic and would like a review for the possibility to nominate it for a Featured Article in future.
Thanks, Victory93 (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: A lot of work has gone into this article, but it is at present some way off being of FA quality, or even GA. Here are some areas for further attention.
- Two disambiguation links revealed by toolbox (upper right on this review page)
- First impression: rather listy, not a lot of text (1070 words). The organisation looks clumsy, with for example "Airing" and "Airing History" as two separate main (level-2) sections. Some of the other sections are too brief at present to warrant a section to themselves.
- The lead is not informative enough. For example, I shouldn't have to rummage through the infobox to discover that the series was aired on ITV. I think too much emphasis has benn given to making the infobox as informative as possible, when the emphasis should be on the article; the infobox should be brief and limited to essential facts.
- Several sections appear in bullet point format. The "Airing History" section is both bullet-pointed and telegraphic, using graphic symbols instead of text. These sections should all be presented in normal prose form.
- The Synopsis looks very thin for a 13-episode series, and should be fleshed out to give a clearer picture of the stories within the series. There is no such word as "sabotagery" (just "sabotage"). The section is not actually a plot synopsis; it is mainly a series of unattributed comments. For example, whose view is it that the series "was considerably darker in tone than many other children's television programmes"? Likewise "The characters' dialogue, too, was somewhat mature for a children's series..." The information in the two short subsections within "Cast and Characters" is really synopsis information.
- Cast and characters: rather chaotic organisation here. Too many main article links (one link to each of the two lists is sufficient); the image is awkwardly positioned - it squeezes the text - and would be more effective elsewhere; the two tables do not seem connected to the rest of the section; as already stated, the text is not really appropriate to this section. I recommend replacing the whole section with a single table devoted to the main characters in the series, with columns headed: Character; Voice actor (English); Voice actor (Japanese). You can rely on the links to the main articles for all detailed information.
- There is no information in the article about how the series was received. What was the public's reaction to it? What did the critics say? What information do we have on viewer figures?
- Prose: I haven't done a full prose check, but I have noticed a few problems, e.g. "would've"; "TVS who was in charge of producing the series, went bankrupt which halted the series from being produced"; "heavily edited footage aired later as part of American children's series Salty's Lighthouse, which aired in 1997" - (awkward repetition)
- File:Tugs000111.jpg has an inadequate fair use rationale.
- I have not gone through the sources in detail, but there seem to be very few independent sources - nearly all are directly related to the programme.
I hope these comments are helpful. As I am not watching individual peer reviews, please contact me via my talkpage if you wish to discuss any points, or if you want me to look again. Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)