| Revision as of 17:49, 23 February 2008 editL.A.Nutti (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers9,279 edits Peer review | Revision as of 10:46, 26 February 2008 edit undoL.A.Nutti (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers9,279 editsm doneNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| Please do not use level 1-3 section headings or horizontal rules in this peer review. Please do not include any images, such as done/not done templates with tick/cross graphics, and please link to automated reviews: do not include them in the peer review page itself. Peer review pages should not be moved. | Please do not use level 1-3 section headings or horizontal rules in this peer review. Please do not include any images, such as done/not done templates with tick/cross graphics, and please link to automated reviews: do not include them in the peer review page itself. Peer review pages should not be moved. | ||
| --> | --> | ||
| {{oldpeerreview|archive=1}} | |||
| {{Peer review page|topic=arts}} | |||
| Hey, I've listed this article about one of my favorite ''The Sopranos'' epsiodes for a peer review. I would like some feedback and comments on the overall quality of the article. I've modeled it after the ] and ] articles (both featured). Although it's not as long as the latter, I think it covers all important aspects and follows ] closely. The article looked like before I started working on it. The plot summary is a little longer than what's recommended but I really can't shorten it anymore without losing coherency, and as stated, "do not directly limit summaries if doing so makes them incoherent - the majority of good and featured episode articles overrun this limit slightly." I reckon there's some copy-editing to be made; as English is not my first language, I'm probably not too good at detecting weird and/or silly wordings. I know that the ] part is just one long sentence but I really think it looks OK like that. | Hey, I've listed this article about one of my favorite ''The Sopranos'' epsiodes for a peer review. I would like some feedback and comments on the overall quality of the article. I've modeled it after the ] and ] articles (both featured). Although it's not as long as the latter, I think it covers all important aspects and follows ] closely. The article looked like before I started working on it. The plot summary is a little longer than what's recommended but I really can't shorten it anymore without losing coherency, and as stated, "do not directly limit summaries if doing so makes them incoherent - the majority of good and featured episode articles overrun this limit slightly." I reckon there's some copy-editing to be made; as English is not my first language, I'm probably not too good at detecting weird and/or silly wordings. I know that the ] part is just one long sentence but I really think it looks OK like that. | ||
Revision as of 10:46, 26 February 2008
Soprano Home Movies
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
 | Peer review/Soprano Home Movies/archive1 received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Hey, I've listed this article about one of my favorite The Sopranos epsiodes for a peer review. I would like some feedback and comments on the overall quality of the article. I've modeled it after the Pilot (House) and Through the Looking Glass (Lost) articles (both featured). Although it's not as long as the latter, I think it covers all important aspects and follows Misplaced Pages:Television episodes closely. The article looked like this before I started working on it. The plot summary is a little longer than what's recommended but I really can't shorten it anymore without losing coherency, and as stated, "do not directly limit summaries if doing so makes them incoherent - the majority of good and featured episode articles overrun this limit slightly." I reckon there's some copy-editing to be made; as English is not my first language, I'm probably not too good at detecting weird and/or silly wordings. I know that the ratings part is just one long sentence but I really think it looks OK like that.
Much appreciated! –FunkyVoltron 17:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)