| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
After four unsuccessful FA nominations, I've decided to list this article for peer review. Although I do think the article is in top shape, feedback was limited in said nominations, and thus I was left unsure of what to do to meet the FA criteria. I would like some feedback and to perhaps build a rapport so as to bring attention to a future FAC.
Thanks in advanced, DAP388 (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- General comments by Aoba47
-
- I am a little uncertain about this statement in the lead: “cited as one of the strongest dramas on television” as it is somewhat ambiguous. This phrasing makes it sound like critics viewed the show as one of the strongest television dramas of all time, but I am not sure if that actually matches the reviews. I would suggest clarifying this by saying: “one of the strongest dramas on the 2014 television season” or something like that.
- I would clarify the “religion” in the phrase “The season explores masculinity and religion” as Christianity just to be clear since the show seems to be referring to one specific type of religion.
- I would suggest turning “Home media release” into its own section as it does not make much sense to place it under the larger “Production” heading. I would advise moving this under the “Reception” section as I have seen done on numerous FA articles about television seasons.
- For the first sentence of the second paragraph in the “Casting and crew” subsection, clarify that Harrelson was brought on to play the role of Martin Hart.
- Add a comma between “by April 2012” and “the network had comissioned”
- For the “Music” section, I would suggest including information about how a soundtrack was released featuring songs from Seasons One and Two.
- The “Themes and influences” section is very strong and informative!
- It may be helpful to expand add a short and concise sentence or addition on how the season finale was inspired by Top 10.
- ”so too did Michael Star” sounds a little awkward to me and I would recommend finding a strong transition or connector, but it may just be me.
- In this phrasing “ an unconventional move given the show's format and fierce competition”, I would suggest clarifying that the format is referring to the show’s structure as an anthology. I was a little confused when first reading this until I read the source.
- I would suggest expanding the second paragraph of the “Accolades” section. The final sentence is not referenced. While the table may support this information, I think you need to add prose to support this as well.
- @DAP388: I have written a few suggestions above. I am not that experienced on Wikipedia so definitely take my comments with a large grain of salt. This article is already very good so I only have minor comments to add here. I am sorry to hear about the lack of participation on your previous FAC attempts and during this peer review. I am honestly surprised as this is a very well done page. Hopefully, it attracts more feedback in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Aoba47: first and foremost thank you for taking the time to provide some feedback. Regardless of being new, any constructive assessment/critique is appreciated! Hopefully come next time, it will pass the FA review. Cheers! DAP388 (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- @DAP388: Thank you for the kind words and good luck with this article in the future! I look forward to seeing be nominated for FAC in the future and I will definitely provide feedback on that as well. Aoba47 (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)