- 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 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has the potential to be an FA so I would like feedback on what need to happen to elevate it to that status. Otto4711 (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
- Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
- I think it looks pretty good. The two criteria I can think of for FAC that seem possible problems here are comprehensiveness and a professional level of writing. It seems pretty comprehensive to me, but there are a few places where a bit more could be added or context could be provided for the reader. For example, Nielsen ratings are often explained in terms of millions of households watching and / or percent of the total audience - is this information available? Or explicitly say why episode 5a was never taped (change in production team?). Or why was taping switched from New York to the West Coast? Or what were Garland's reactions to the various changes in personnel, format and cancelation? More details on Garland's financial situation might not hurt either - how did the 26 episodes affect her finances? Various Emmy nominations are menioned, but did these win?
- Language is pretty good but could use a copyedit - for example the lead sentence could be a combination of the current first two sentences (The Judy Garland Show was an American musical variety television series which aired 26 episodes on CBS during the 1963-1964 television season.). Or the sentence on her finances is unclear - could probably be two sentences (and expanded). Or Garland's old friend and frequent MGM co-star Mickey Rooney was, at Garland's insistence, her first guest.[21] could be something like Garland insisted her old friend and frequent MGM co-star Mickey Rooney was her first guest.[21] or even Her old friend and frequent MGM co-star Mickey Rooney was her first guest, at Garland's insistence.[21] (this last is part of a short two sentence paragraph - could these be combined with others or perhaps expanded?)
- The table - do Guests and Notes need to be sortable? Some places where N/A is used could be clearer - for example could "No guests" be used in the concert episodes? Or "Never taped" for Episode 5A? Would it make sense to add an aired number (order in which they aired)?
- No followup - when were the episodes released on TV? Were there long term effects of the show on Garland or her career or others associated with it?
- Trailer dimensions - spell out feet and give meters too. The {{convert}} template may help here
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 ><>°° 22:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)