[edit] Avatar: The Last Airbender

[edit] Review commentary

Notified Wikipedia:Wikiproject Television, User:Raul654, User:HeirToPendragon, User:Fyre2387, User:The Placebo Effect, User:Dylan0513, User:Parent5446, User:Herald Alberich, User:Rau J, User:Y BCZ, User:Redsparta

Since its passing in January 2007, the article has become filled with a lot of non-reliable sources, particularly from two Avatar fansites: musogato.com and avatarspirit.com. It also has several unreferenced sections now, which appear to be original research or fan theories. All of this badly violates criteria 1c for featured articles. It also had links to copyvio material. I've removed the most blatant (MP3 downloads), but may still have links to unofficial episode transcripts. There are so many links to these two fansites, in particular, that I do not think it can quickly be fixed or replaced with more valid sources, so sending here. Collectonian (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a couple of {{fact}} tags to the influences section. One paragraph in particular, which dealt with the focusing of qi during element bending, was sourced with the name of an avatar episode. I removed the source and placed a tag on it because it did not even come close to supporting the very specific statement. However, an editor replaced the source stating the specific statement was a direct quote from avatar (see here). However, it was never put into quotations, nor was it noted (in the actual article) which character spoke the line. This amounts to plagiarism. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not know whether I was just looking at one part of the article, but the prose seems to be a little on the confusing side. There seems to be some number of redundant phrases. Even if I'm wrong, I'm sure the article could use a good copy-edit. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 00:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

We have removed the links to episode transcripts from the reference template, but I will go now and remove them from old references. I will also directly quote the qi part, which was spoken by King bumi in The Return to Omashu, an episode in the shows second season. Rau's Speak Page 01:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, when I looked back, the article has no links to episode transcripts. And many of the links to AvatarSpirit are for interviews, which I do not see how a site could be unreliable on that unless it is made up. And that site always cites a sources, so I doubt that they made it up. The links that aren't transcripts are news reports, such as Convention information and information directly from Nickelodeon. And for Musogato, I do not see how translations and article scans of interviews are a bad thing. Rau's Speak Page 02:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If AvatarSpirit is citing its sources, go to the sources to get the original version. Article scans of interviews is not the same as the original (can be manipulated, and possibly a copyright issue as they are not a journal service with permission to republish the articles online). If they are all giving their sources, again, go to the sources, get the original, and cite it rather than a fansite that does not meet WP:RS. Collectonian (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thinking about it, nine out of ten times AvatarSpirit does not provide a source other than "Nick said it". So yea, I drop that from my argument. One of the Musogato interviews were from Nickmag, how do we get the original for that? Rau's Speak Page 03:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Which interview? Collectonian (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The same interview is cited from that site twice: [1]. Rau's Speak Page 03:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Does he give the publication information anywhere? Like which issue, date, etc? If you can have that, enough places that aren't reliable sources mention the article that you can relatively safely presume it was published and cite the magazine itself. Collectonian (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look into it. I never actually thought of that..... Rau's Speak Page 04:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for comaprison, here is a diff between the current version and the version that was promoted to FA: [2] — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 11:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have died out. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point of letting us see the old version of the article, the point of wikipedia is the improvement of the article. A revert of that scale would diminish the articles quality. And a lot of discussions on this project seem to die. Rau's Speak Page 18:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, the Aang article has a direct reference to the original magazine article. So if you want to copy that reference you can. I believe it is ref sixteen. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 01:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

May I ask, what is still wrong with this FA? I have noticed the orignal nominator hasn't said anything recenty.The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 01:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

None of the issues have been addressed. Collectonian (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean none of the issues have been addressed? We basically shot down the fansite one and I personally just removed unsourced material and sourced other material. I do not see how that is not addressing the issues. Rau's Speak Page 01:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

He asked what was still wrong. I was just giving him a short answer. The issues have not been completely addressed yet, so all of the problems are still issues that have not been resolved. Collectonian (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Then what is still wrong? Looks pretty good to me. The information is sourced and references are accurate. Rau's Speak Page 01:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Avatarspirit is still in use — non-RS fansite. Still has unsourced content, some tagged as needing sources, some that have dead link sources. It also has excessive non-free images per WP:NONFREE. Collectonian (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

AvatarSpirit is being used for interviews. What policy does that violate? Show me where the unsourced content is and I will source or remove it. Also don't say some, there is only one. And all of the links in the sources are good, I checked them. Rau's Speak Page 01:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the fighting styles, I am sourcing that now. Rau's Speak Page 01:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

AvatarSpirit is a fansite, and violates WP:RS (and parts of violate WP:COPYVIO making it a bad link to begin with). It can't be used for anything.Collectonian (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Its being used for an interview with the staff. I do not see how referencing their interviews violates any of that. Rau's Speak Page 02:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You really are one stubborn user, Collectionian. I think you should take a visit to WP:RS when you site it. There is ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of fansites in that guideline (emphasis on GUIDELINE; sorry to have to use CAPS). Avatar Spirit does not just decide to make up interviews from thin air. That is preposterous. In addition, how exactly are the interviews a copyvio. I am very interested to find out. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 02:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Watch the attitude already. WP:CIVILITY is a policy. I didn't say the interviews violate copyright, the site itself does with its transcription section. Those are not authorized and they are copyright violations. You have no idea if the interviews are real or not because the site does not meet the qualifications for being a reliable source, and being a fansite it never will. And FYI, RS is "just a guideline" but one that supports the verifiability policy, so it is not just a guideline you can ignore. If it isn't a reliable source, it doesn't meet V and doesn't belong, period. Collectonian (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Its an interview. And because of that I do not see why any of the others matter. Rau's Speak Page 02:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it isn't a reliable source, and linking to it can be seen as a copyright violation due to the illegal transcripts, illegal MP3s, etc. As they aren't a news source, peer reviewed, etc, there is nothing to say the interview is a good one, conducted properly, and is factual. Since as it doesn't seem to be sourcing anything not already sourced elsewhere, why even keep it at all? Collectonian (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• ding* only picture i can find with all 7 of them but i doubt we want to use it. The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 03:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

One, nice find, I forgot all about that. Two, we aren't linking to any copyrighted material I do not see how that applies. And if the only excuse for it not being reliable is that they are a fan site, then you need to do one better. WP:VERIFY states that "the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses" and "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued". Those are the only mention of peer reviews in the entire policy. After that, we drop to the guideline WP:RS, which has no mention of fan sites at all. Rau's Speak Page 03:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Rau J, consensus there has supported that fansites are not reliable sources, multiple times, and that linking to a site that deliberately violates copyrights is not appropriate at all. That was agree in recent discussions over some anime sites that included links to fansub downloads, Ani-DB. All links to it were removed and its templates deleted as it was agreed that linking to it even for the info pages was a violation of WP:COPYVIO. Collectonian (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately while it shows all, it isn't clear enough to meet the other image use requirements. Also, keep in mind that a character image isn't necessary here. As pointed out in non-free, the individual pages already have images. Collectonian (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

How does it violate WP:COPYVIO, I just read the entire page and there was no mention of link to sites that have copyright violating material. And where is the consensus that states that it does? Rau's Speak Page 03:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong short cut. See Wikipedia:Copyrights, particularly the second paragraph of the Linking to copyrighted works section. If you want, we can start yet another discussion on why you feel we should link to a site that violates US law and go against that policy, but why not just find better sources.Collectonian (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I will personally remove all links to information on Avatarspirit, and any information that becomes unsourced as a result of it. Rau's Speak Page 03:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Could we link here, considering its an archive? [3] — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 12:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, because its an archive of the same site, which still would have the same problems. Collectonian (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(ding) May i ask why hosting some copyrighted material invalidates the interviews they did themselves to which everyone else will point back to them for that info? The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 14:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it violates WP:Copyright. It doesn't matter if they did the interview themselves, they still deliberately violate the copyrights of the property owners. They also aren't really a WP:RS so the value of the interview is questionable. Collectonian (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

SO just beacuse they hosted some copyrighted material, every piece of info on there site can't be used? Even if it isn't copyrighted material? That seems a little off to me.... The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 14:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that policy. In the court trial that the policy cites, the defendant had actually posted information that was copyrighted, they did not link to an illegal site or anything like that. There is no proof or examples that says linking to a site that posts illegal content is against US law. Furthermore, the policy specifically states "It is currently acceptable to link to Internet archives such as the Wayback Machine." Therefore, it would be acceptable to use that link I provided a couple of lines up. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 15:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and personally I kind of like that image. We definitely need some sort of image in the characters section. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 15:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether you disagree with the policy is, frankly, irrelevant. The Wikimedia Foundation chose to have stronger copyright policies than US law, as is within their right. It is their website and we are bound by their rules, same as with non-free. And no, an image is not "needed" and many series FAs and GAs do not have them.Collectonian (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant Mr. I-cite-policies-and-guidelines. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." So, yea, If we deem that not using ASN reduces the quality of the article, then we ignore it. Rau's Speak Page 18:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A — its Miss, B - WP:CIVIL, C-ignore all rules doesn't apply here. It doesn't prevent anything. The site adds no real value to the article. And, some policies can not be ignored, no matter what. I'd suggest you read Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means to actually understand what IAR really means. It does not mean you get to ignore copyright policies, and it does not mean you get to ignore the consensus of community. IAR is not a "do whatever I want because I don't like your policies" card. You may also want to look at WP:POINT, which is what your last edit was an inappropriate form of. Get over it. Find a valid, non-copyright violating source, or leave it out. Collectonian (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the "mr.", and I was civil. And I read what it means before I cited it. I genuinely feel that not using ASN reduces the quality of the article. And IAR means "Ignore All Rules", that means everything; policy, guidelines, consensus; everything. And my WP:POINT has no bearing on my last edit. Rau's Speak Page 18:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

IAR does not mean everything. If consensus agrees that IAR doesn't apply, it doesn't apply. If one could just invoke IAR to do whatever they wanted, we wouldn't have policies, guidelines, and people wouldn't get blocked for vandalizing articles. Articles wouldn't be deleted for containing copyrighted info because one could just claim "its better than nothing" and links to copyright violations would not be something that gets you a single warning before blocking (which it does). If the content from ASN were geniuinely valuable and would improve the quality of the article, the plain and simple truth is that it would exist elsewhere in other, more reliable, non-law breaking places. That no other sources are available for the information brings into question whether it is even factual, must less valuable to the article. Collectonian (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And what consensus declared that IAR didn't apply? I know of another source for the information but that site (though an official news source) has links to copyrighted material as well. Giving examples of the musical score. Is that site not allowed either? Rau's Speak Page 19:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Multiple discussions at WP:Copyright that such links don't belong, period. What's the new source/link? If it is an official news source, they are likely to have permission to actually include examples (allowable use), versus ASN which has no permission. Collectonian (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you know that ASN doesn't have permission. Considering that they receive high quality trailers from Nickelodeon themselves, I think that if Nick had a problem with them having copyrighted material it would have been taken down. (This interview has a lot of the same information, and then some.) Rau's Speak Page 19:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Because if they had it, they would state so. They don't, and do not give any note that the transcripts are official or otherwise. Where as that article gives a proper disclaimer, notes the tracks were provided to them, and are only providing short samples (20-30 seconds) for review purposes. That site could be used as a WP:RS. Collectonian (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Later tonight I will organize a new comprehensive section with information from that site. I know of no other sites that have information, nor do I intend to look. If someone else finds a site, they can add the information. Rau's Speak Page 19:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an exact example of something I believe Raul654 said. It went along the lines of "The more time that passes, the less plastic Wikipedia's policies are, and the harder they are to change." Unfortunately, that is the sad truth. Does anybody realize the value of what is being lost here. There are at least ten interview on ASN that have tons of valuable information, all of which have been used in multiple Avatar articles, not to mention that these sources have been reviewed many times and let by (ASN was cited during this article's FA, during Aang's GA, and during many PRs). I do not see what consensus you are pointing to, because I have had tons of editors say "ASN is not reliable", and after I said "the sources are interviews", they were always OK with it. The only thing that is coming in the way of this article and ASN is a policy. Oh, and just so you know, WP:IAR does apply here. It even says in WP:WIARM that IAR can be used if there is an actual explanation that can justify the stray from policy. And there is an explanation. This site has a lot of information. If RauJ does not come back with a lot of information from his new site, I am not going to care what that policy says, because this article is suffering and I will not allow the suffering to continue. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 20:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Amen. And the indents are getting ridiculous. Rau's Speak Page 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you want to use it, use it, but it is valid grounds for the article losing its FA status. Up to you. You don't want it to be FA, then IAR and use unreliable, inappropriate sites as reference. If you want it to remain FA, quit complaining and actually do the work necessary to fix the article back to FA quality, including using proper, reliable sources and removing anything that can't be sourced from a proper source. This whole thing is getting utterly ridiculous. Collectonian (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Please move this RFC to the talk page; FAR is not dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• never mind, I'll do it myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian: I still have no idea what you are talking about. Nowhere in WP:FA? does it say that an article's sources must comply with every guideline in the book. Nor does it say that WP:IAR cannot be used in a FA. Furthermore, as we've said before, these sources are clearly reliable. The only thing you seem to have against them is the fact they have "illegal" episodes transcripts (and maybe soundtracks) and the fact that it is a fansite. But not every fansite is unreliable. In fact, you'd be surprised how reliable some fansites can be if you analyze them closely. Keep in mind it is in fact the fansite's goal to put reliable, true information about the show on its site. Besides, it is not like we are citing a forum or something, we are citing an interview. As for the supposed "illegal" links, only Collectonian, me, and Rau J have been commenting, and all of our opinions are biased. So I suggest we wait for somebody to respond to the RFC before making a call on that one. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 20:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Parent, that is a horrific signature length to edit around; would you consider shortening it? Concerns about reliability of sources should directly engage WP:V wording; anything else is hot air. Please justify sources specifically per WP:V policy. Further, the last time I read WP:COPYRIGHT (and WP:EL) they were very clear: we don't knowingly link to sites with copyright violations. Period. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I called WP:IAR, not using the site is disregarding a very large amount of information that was acquired through interviews. I find that wrong and degrading of the quality of the article. Rau's Speak Page 20:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't jeopardize all of Wiki for one article to violate a copyright. That is an absurd stretch of IAR. Have you read WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:EL on the reasons why we don't link to copyvios? If these interviews were so important and notable, why can't you find the originals or find them in some usable form without violating copyright? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And amid all this childish hollering and arm waving, can someone please put up the exact URL we're talking about, and the text it is being used to cite? It would be helpful to be able to make an informed opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Avatarspirit conducted the interview themselves. These are the originals. Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. We were using them for information on the musical score of the show. And is anyone else starting to feel like a douche for forgetting why we are here? Rau's Speak Page 21:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please try to provide some clear information that others can follow. If they conducted the interviews themselves, where is this copyvio? And what is the text being cited to these interviews? Who owns the interviews, are they hosted on a reliable source, and where is the copyvio everyone is talking about? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sandy, based on this comment by Collectonian,[4] it isn't that a link to material that is a copyright violation is being used to cite text. Collectonian seems to be under the impression that because the website has copyrighted material on it that nothing on the website can be used. The links from the fansite that are being used to support text are not copyright violations, but are rather interview conducted by the website itself. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Bobblhead :-) So the RFC question is, when the website hosts other pages that contain copyright vios, is it OK to link to any pages on that website... is that correct? If that is the question, my understanding is no, but I honestly don't know if that specific question has been explored. I do recall reading somewhere that the very fact that a website would host a copyvio renders it, by definition, a non-reliable source. Don't know on which Wiki page I saw that, but that is my understanding of why the source would be disqualified as reliable. Still want to see what kind of text is being sourced (and still want to remind the article editors that there are other deficiencies that need attention). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This edit[5] seems to cover the text that is being supported by links to AvatarSpirit.Net. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Text cited to alleged copyvio site (no one has yet shown us the copyvio, this is like pulling teeth)

Avatar features an extensive original musical score, written by composers Benjamin Wynn and Jeremy Zuckerman, founders of the Track Team.^[1] According to an interview with Jeremy Zuckerman, the team had been hired by the creators due to a roommate story.^[1] Benjamin Wynn had been roommates with Bryan Konietzko while he and DiMartino were creating Avatar. The creators decided to hire Wynn and Zuckerman to do the score, having complete faith in their ability.^[1] Because the instruments are chosen based on timbre, and not culture, the music in the show is composed of both Western and Eastern instruments.^[2] Chosen for its intimacy and gentle sounds, the Kalimba is used in the more serene moments.^[2] The sound of the sunghi horn, a fictional instrument that first appeared on the show in the episode "The Waterbending Scroll", is also used in the musical score of the show. It is described as having a sound like an instrument that is part reed and part brass.^[3]

So, besides the sourcing question, help me understand why this prose is engaging, compelling or brilliant? Why don't you all stop fighting over one site for a few days, focus instead on bringing this article to standard, don't put up half-baked RfCs that waste community time, and see how this issue works out once you've cleaned up the rest of the article? Doesn't it trouble any of you that you're basing everything about the music score on one source ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It does now, I never thought of it. But we do have a second source that I had every intention to use to rewrite the musical score section before this was reignited. Rau's Speak Page 22:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll see what I can do. BTW, if I find the time to copyedit the whole article, the revisions will be posted tomorrow. I cannot guarantee the inclusion of any edits between now and then, but I will try. (For my own reference, this is the revision I am working from.) — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 02:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Just one last thing: I don't understand how linking to ASN is a copyvio. Could somebody please explain? — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The point here is that in the past, a US court has said it is illegal to link to sights that contain copyrighted material, an dwe need to avoid any law suits at all. Unless we email AvatarSpirit about this asking about it. But i don't know exactly what we could ask them. If they can remove the copyrighted material so we can use them a source on wikipedia and provide proof they had the interviews( I think some are in mp3 form actually)? The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 02:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm not getting. There is nothing in copyright law that says linking to sites with copyrighted material is illegal. There is a law that says linking to copyrighted material itself is illegal (like if we linked directly to the mp3 files or transcripts, which he have done before, but they were removed). So what is the problem? — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 03:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm also seeing a lot of MoS deficiencies and unformatted and incorrectly formatted citations, so you all might want to stop arguing and start bringing the article to standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Sandy, but that was mentioned in the original post, so we didn't know that was a problem. We will get right on it. The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 12:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I copyedited up to the Influences section. Is it at least a little bit better? — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 23:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is reference quality (1c). Marskell (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Remove - still has referencing issues, including large amounts of unsourced content and some non-WP:RS sources. Article also badly fails to follow the TV MoS and no exceptional reason given/demonstrated for not following it. The non-free image issues have been fixed, and article has improved during this FAR, but I do not feel it is back to being FA quality yet. Collectonian (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Twin Peaks episodes

A few days ago, I saw that this list of one of my favorite TV shows wasn't in very good shape. It wasn't terrible but it definitely needed some sprucing. So I got some sources and expanded the list and even included a cover and detailed synopses for each season. Looking at it now, it does seem a lot better, even if do say so myself! So review the list and tell me whether it seemed like "a damn fine cup of coffee" or not. Thanks! (SUDUSER)₈₅ 15:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• No bold links in the opening section of the lead please.
  • Y Done fixed (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Place citations per WP:CITE, i.e. immediately after punctuation where possible.
  • Y Done (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• " To date, both seasons of Twin Peaks have been released on..." why To date? Won't this always be the case from now on?
  • Y Done fixed (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Why are the number of episodes (in total and each series) in bold?
  • Y Done rmv for individual seasons, but I thought it's supposed to be there in the lead, that's the case for lists like List of Seinfeld episodes and List of The Sopranos episodes. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• " spanning two seasons of 30 episodes, until its cancellation" - no, it still spans two seasons of 30 episodes. Subsequently it was cancelled.
  • Y Done Sentence reworked. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Last sentence of lead not cited.
  • Y Done Fortunately I had the book Lynch on Lynch (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• "1990–91" rather than "1990 – 1991", or at least axe the spaces.
  • Y Done Spaces axed (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• What makes episode world a reliable source?
  • Y Done rmv (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Second general reference and third external link are essentially identical, probably lose the ext. link.
  • Y Done rmv to include just one in the general refs. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Y Done all suggestions by The Rambling Man have been addressed by (SUDUSER)₈₅. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments (edit conflicted with Rambling Man above)

• Remove links from any bold text, or remove the bold, per WP:LEAD.
  • Y Done See The Rambling Man's comments above. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Publishers in references only need to be italicized if they are publications and follow MOS:TITLE.
  • Y Done (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• "released October 30, 2007[3]." – reference goes after all punctuation marks per WP:FOOTNOTE
  • Y Done See The Rambling Man's comments above. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Y Done all suggestions by Gary King have been addressed by (SUDUSER)₈₅. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Moonlight episodes

I believe the list meets all the featured list criteria. There has been much improvement over the last month or so. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 17:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

More Nice work on the edits so far. I've done a little tweaking to the article, but there's one more thing I think needs to be resolved:

• Ref 14 from TVByTheNumbers.com is a blog, which isn't allowed as an WP:RS. Exceptions could be made if the author is notable (do they write for a major publication, perhaps), but I'm sure ratings could be sourced from somewhere else.

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I found another source for the ratings, Entertainment Now, is it any better? The problem is that for the first episode, the ref states the ratings, but for the rating info for the second episode, the ratings for the first episode is different. By which numbers should I go by? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 07:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That one is again a blog. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Don't italicize publishers that aren't publications in "References" per MOS:TITLE
• Add an image of a DVD boxset, if one exists (I think it has one?)
• Expand contractions, including "wasn't", and "doesn't"

Gary King (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have made the appropriate changes, though I am not sure with publications should not be italicized. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 10:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Italics have been removed, where applicable. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose from Collectonian (talk · contribs)

• Needs an image, preferable of the box set if available
• The ratings column seems rather superflous and is not a common featured in an episode list. Its crunching the table and making it look crowded. As the ratings of the show is already better summarized in the lead, so I'd drop the column all together. With it gone, the airdate can stop wrapping. Also seconding note that TVByTheNumbers does not appear to meet WP:RS
• Change Episode # -> Ep # to reduce the width of the column
• Missing information about availability on DVD. Since its a single season, a mention in the lead is fine, but should be mentioned somewhere.
• List needs a copyedit and some of the summaries are lacking what appear to be pertinent details. A few prose issues I spotted:
  • "Though two puncture wounds to the neck make it appear that the girl was killed by vampires, Mick knows that this was not the case." but doesn't say how or why he knows this?
  • "Fortunately, Mick comes to her rescue, using his vampire strength to overcome the true villain." - ortunately? says who? the "true villain" is a bit dramatic sounding
  • "Mick knows Spalding is not the reformed man he pretends to be, and feels responsible because..." responsible for what, Spalding being in jail, escaping, being alive?
  • "Beth's friend Julia writes a book about Spalding, showing him as a great man. When Spalding kidnaps Julia" - why did he kidnap Julia if she wrote a book about how great he is?
  • "After finding out about Mick being a vampire, Beth works hard to wrap her mind around this new information, which proves difficult." overly verbose. Can be said much more simply, such as "Beth struggles to accept Mick being a vampire."
  • "Mick finds Leni in the desert just before the hit man arrives, but the pair flee into the desert and get stranded. " confusing
  • "After being forced to feed on Beth's blood, Mick has been successfully avoiding her." switching tense and wordy. "After being forced to feed on Beth's blood, Mick avoids her."

As a side note, why are there individual articles for the first five episodes? Only the first shows any notability. 3-5 are pure plot summary and IMDB trivia. I'd suggest considering a merge/redirect back to the list for those and axing the links. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is TV by the Numbers not a reliable source? –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, it appears to be a self-published blog/website. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The DVD hasn't been released yet, so I'd go with a screenshot of the intertitles. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Amazon has a ad/poster that would also be a good choice. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

All taken care of. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 11:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the episode summaries still need copyediting (those were just a few examples) :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please check the page again. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 10:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be copyedited by someone who isn't the primary editor. :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And how can I get someone to copyedit it? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 15:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Can try asking one of the folks listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers#General copyediting -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• You have a dead link per this.
• Not sure your FU rationale for the image is correct - doesn't look like a cover to me, looks like an advert...
• Image (on my browser - Safari) overlaps the table in the following section.
• Agree with Collectonian re:copyedit.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Your first three concerns are no longer valid. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

My third is still valid I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes

Where to start...First off, the lead is ridiculously short for such a long article. It does not mention anything about the shorts of DVDs located near the end of the article. The prose is a little bit short, though not the main problem the article has. For the table itself, it is not very appealing. Every part of the table is a different shade of gray. Even the place where summary text is placed is gray, which is not a good contrast of colors. In addition to all of this, the article has no sourcing for pretty much anything in the article, with particular concern toward the DVD section. Also, the article seems to have mini-trivia sections at the top of each section. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 11:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delist per short lead, which does not even give the premise of the series; however, this list is very easy to save. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 2)

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

• 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 June 2008.

I have attempted to source this article up and improve it as much as I can. Now I need outside comments in order to prepare the article for its GAN, which I plan to start after fixing the problems given in this PR. Any comments are welcome. Thanks, — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 12:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• The lead needs to be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - now there is no mention of Reception or DVD in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
• There seems to be too much empahsis in the lead on the plot - see WP:WEIGHT
• A model article is useful for ideas on structure, refs, style, etc. I note that Smallville (season 1) is a FA and should be a good model.
• Some of the episode summaries are much longer than others - I think they generally should be about the same length.
• Article needs a copyedit, for example In addition, Mae and Ty Lee, are introduced as antagonists who help Azula to capture Aang. could be something like In addition, two other characters, Mae and Ty Lee, are introduced as antagonists who help Azula capture Aang. or The group escapes along with the Earth King and Bosco, where Katara heals Aang. where implies a location has been given, but it does not say where they escaped to, either include that or just drop "where" and replace it with "later" or even "and"
• Be careful to provide context for the reader - not everyone who reads this will have seen the show or know what it is about, so giving some brief context and background is helpful - see WP:PCR
• Since this is a work of fiction, make sure things are written from an out of universe perspective - see WP:IN-U

[edit] Last of the Summer Wine

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently listed as a good article and I now wish to receive feedback on what can be revised to bring it up to FA standards as I begin to revise.

Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 04:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of The Bellflower Bunnies episodes

Previous peer review

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

• 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 May 2008.

I've now included a title of episode titles, per Ruhrfisch's RFC suggestion. Now that the series finale has aired in Germany, I wonder if we're all ready for the triple crown yet?

See also this FLC page to see what went wrong last time, and tell me what still needs to be worked on.

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: OK, here we go. I am going to go through each section and make comments.

• I think a copyedit is the most pressing need. I don't really do copyedits on other's work, but the problem I see here is that some of the phrases are so unclear that it would have to be an interactive process - the copyeditor would ask you what was meant, you would reply, and the copyeditor would make the needed changes. The FLC highlights a number of these unclear places.
• Copyeditors can be found by asking at WP:PRV or by asking one of the people listed at WP:LOCE directly.
• A co-production between France and Canada, it is based on the Beechwood Bunny Tales books by Geneviève Huriet, Amélie Sarn and Loïc Jouannigot. Would it be better to identify the television channels, so A co-production between France's TF1 and several Canadian companies, it is based on the Beechwood Bunny Tales books by Geneviève Huriet, Amélie Sarn and Loïc Jouannigot. ?
• Suggest something like TF1 has been involved in the show's production since its premiere, with Valérie Baranski as the series writer, Patricia Robert as producer, Moran Caouissin as director for the first season, and Eric Berthier for the second and third.
• The third paragraph of the lead is confusing - perhaps it could be rewritten as something like

The first four episodes of The Bellflower Bunnies premiered on TF1, then ran on its children's channel TFOU TV (formerly TF! Jeunesse), and has since appeared on France's local Playhouse Disney. The series has also been broadcast on CBC Television in Quebec, KI.KA in Germany, Portugal's RTP in the Azores, and in several other countries. As of June 2008, 52 episodes have been produced, with four episodes airing in the first season, 22 in the second, and 26 in the third.[3][4] The complete series has only aired on KI.KA, where the last fourteen episodes appeared in May 2008,[3][6] while the first 38 episodes have aired in France.[5]

• I would then go on to briefly explain the first list (of titles in French / German / English) in the lead.
• Another idea would be to give the titles in the list of episodes, always in the same order, so Episode 1 might be something like

and Episodes 27 and might be someting like

• This would allow you to combine the French and German epsiodes lists from Season Three - just leave an n-dash – for the unknown French title and unknown official number in the "German" episodes.
• If you choose to do something like this, the first list could be cut back to just a list of the thirteen episodes based on the actual books.
• If possible, I would list the episode numbers for the DVD releases. For example, the first North American DVD has episodes 1 and 2.