Peanuts

[edit]
Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it can be a GA and has plenty of FA potential. I realize it failed GAN in 2006, and has an old peer review in 2007. Anything from those that you want to reiterate, anything you think is sufficiently fixed, or any new stuff that has come up? There are plenty of sourcing issues. Any suggestions you can provide would be helpful (where to look, any books you know of). Anything else you think this article needs to really help it shine, be bold and speak up.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mlaffs' comments: I'm going to have a look at this, as it's a particular area of interest for me. I also have some material at home that may prove helpful wrt sourcing. More to come… Mlaffs (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome; very much appreciated! :) BOZ (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments What I noticed about this is that so much of it is unsourced, which is a shame as there are several very good books out there on Peanuts and Charles M. Schulz.

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 ><>°° 01:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'm open to all input. :) BOZ (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]