Wikipedia:Peer review/Top Gear (current format)/archive1

Top Gear

Hopefully the eventual outcome of this peer review will be to bring this article up to 'Featured Article' level. However, there may still may be a number of improvments that others feel can be made. It would be greatly appreciated if others could highlight these points so as edits can be made. I feel that there should be a particular emphasis on the 'Segments' article, as I feel it currently has a lot of fancruft. I have made some headway into editing this section however feel it does need more work. Thanks ncma 20:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor

First sentence is not good. To open with "The current format of" is very weak, and the awards its won should not be put in the very first sentence. Something simple, like: "Top Gear is BBC Television series about cars" is much better.
There are numerous citation needed tags, which (obviously) need citations.
There are stubby paragraphs in the lead and throughout the article.
Segments, as you say, is fancrufty. It is also probably focused on recent episodes too much. Top Gear has been around a long-time, so this isn't really an accurate reflection.
References change between "Accessed" and "Retrieved on" - the latter is probably the most-adopted standard.
The prose needs general work, but that should probably come after the other changes.

This needs quite a lot of work, particularly focusing on generalising it - at the moment, it is much too reflective of the current format of the show. Trebor 21:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks will work on making some of those changes, isn't their an article on the original format of Top Gear?ncma 16:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, so there is - I failed miserably in noticing it. Shouldn't there then be an article on the current format of the show, with the main Top Gear article summarising both? Trebor 16:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - shall discuss changing title on discussion pagencma 16:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References changed - don't know how to link the citations in article, however

The reasoning for Top Gear being an article and not a disambiguation page is that Top Gear originally encompassed both formats of the show. Any content relating to the original show was recently forked off to Top Gear (original format). However, there are over 400 links point to Top Gear, the vast majority of which are about the new format. At first I was against the idea of a move, but after seeing how the article could be confused in the way it is presented, it might be worth it. With AWB, it shouldn't be too much work. More discussion at the article talk page. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AndyZ automated suggestions

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]