Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been through a lot of editing in the past few months. It has been cleaned up, certain sections removed or merged, and references have been inserted against the relevant statements. it would be a great help if other editors outside the subject matter could give their opinion on the article. Thanks, Nreive (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 15:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not use level 1-3 section headings or "Done" templates ("Done" should suffice). Thanks, Geometry guy 10:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is just stuff that occurs to me as I read through:

• I'd maybe back off a little on the explanation of 'Grant Naylor' in the lead, it's a bit distracting. Maybe just leave it as 'was written by Rob Grant and Doug Naylor' and leave the explanation until the main body of the article?
  Done Agreed, removed from lead-in as info box shows this. --Nreive (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  
• "Along the way are frequent distractions that usually see the not-so-intrepid Dwarf crew encountering strange races and lifeforms that have developed in the intervening millions of years." Might be considered as un-encyclopedic in tone. I don't mind it occasionally, but would be concerned if the whole article were in this tone.
  Done Re-written section. --Nreive (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  
• Yup, while the material so far is clear and well-written, it is rather chatty in tone. I'd keep some of that, it's nice to have a 'friendly' article, but definitely tone it down from the current state. (I've made some minor tweaks for other reasons as I went along).

  -Thanks for the tweaks, I'll look out for this in the next few days. --Nreive (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  

• There's a referencing problem with 'Setting and Plot' and 'Characters and Actors'. I'm not quite sure how best to handle referencing the 'in universe' elements covered here - perhaps look at some FA fictional series articles to see how it was handled there.
  Done Added appropriate citations. --Nreive (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  
• The last two paras of 'Themes' are a bit weak, both one-liners. Suggest that you beef them up if possible and consider dropping them if not.
  Done Merged paras and minor re-writes. --Nreive (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  
• In fact, from 'Themes' on there seem to be an increasing number of very short paragraphs - suggest some of these could be beefed up or merged to create more meaty paras.
  Agreed, cleaned up some sections and will finish off the rest in the next day or so. --Nreive (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done merged small paras and removed small section at end of article. --Nreive (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The first part of 'Novels' may be a little confusing: while it is true to say that Rob Grant and Doug Naylor wrote the four novels, it suggests that they wrote them all together. Maybe reorganise the information slightly.
  Done Agreed, removed line and merged paras. --Nreive (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  
• "(these "Xtended" episodes would later be included on the DVD)" I have no idea what this means, and I come from the UK and am of the 'Red Dwarf' generation, so I'm considerably less likely to be confused than most of your readers! Suggest you explain further, or consider dropping the point.
  Done Removed line. --Nreive (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  
• Last para of 'U.S. version'. This reads as if Grant and Naylor produced a new pilot as a result of the American producers dropping their script. Is this really what is meant, or did they do it because the first pilot was not well received? In any case, at present no indication of what reception the first pilot received is given.
  Done Agreed, section has been re-written. --Nreive (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  
• The article comes across as 'pro' the series - not surprisingly because I guess those who work on it are fans. Is there any negative or critical material that can be included? (Fans views of which series are better or worse aren't really what I mean). Any negative reviews? Any idea why the U.S. version didn't take off?
  Done The re-written U.S. version explains this a bit more. --Nreive (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  
• For similar reasons, look at sentences like "Doug Naylor has been attempting to get funding to make a feature length film version of the show, but on every occasion so far has been thwarted by circumstances". A neutral might think, 'well, maybe the script just isn't very good!' Has he really been thwarted by circumstance, or is it just that no-one wants to make his film?

Done re-written Movie sections to clarify. --Nreive (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I'd say this is a pretty good article It's mostly well-written, of a good length, and avoids falling into the traps of the in-universe perspective and including huge amounts of fan trivia. Fix the tone and referencing of the first couple of sections, and sort out the one line paras in the second half and you'll have a really nice article. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, it is a very good article. I can't see anything majour wrong with it. A few minor things though *The lede is four paragraphs - right at the top end of the suggestions. Is there any way it could be shortened to 3 paragraphs?

• -It has been tightened up recently, but I don't think it could be shortened any more. --Nreive (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  -ok. I can't see any way to reduce itmyself, and the length of it isn't exccessive. StuartDD _{contributions} 17:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As with above, explain the "Xtended" versions line a bit more.
  Done Removed line from section. --Nreive (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  

*Are all the images neccesary? (WP:NFC) - I don't see the need for Image:Red dwarf doug rob.jpg.

• -There really aren't too many images in there. The Red Dwarf ship to establish setting, the writers on set, early cast and later cast images, first novel image and comic strip snippet of greyscale Rimmer - six images which are all relevant to their respective sections. --Nreive (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  -Yes, I've had a look at the section with the above image again, and it is serving a useful purpose. StuartDD _{contributions} 17:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The line "in recent months series creator Doug Naylor has mentioned the possibility of an animated movie, television series, or taking the live action series to another broadcaster" appears to be in two places (the lede and the future prospects section) - is it needed in both?

Done Re-written sections. --Nreive (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I can see just now - it is a well written article. StuartDD _{contributions} 11:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some things that could be improved.

• The article can do with a copyedit, as there were some problems with grammar etc. (For example, missing full stops)
  :*A Wikipedia:LoCE request has been made and I will continue to look at the article in the next few days for obvious errors. --Nreive (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  
• References should be included at the end of punctuation. If two appear next to each other, there should be no spaces between them.

Done fixed all refs and spaces. --Nreive (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove weasel words (for example "two of the notable names" and "a happy result of").

Done re-wrote wording. --Nreive (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Cat, played by Danny John-Jules,[13] has an IQ of 6,000, although this is severely depleted by the three million years he/she is left alone after the accident, having developed "computer senility". The change in appearance for Series III is explained by Holly having changed his face to resemble that of a computer from a parallel universe with whom he'd fallen in love.[14]" You seemed to have mixed up Cat and Holly there.
  Done Previous editing error has been corrected. --Nreive (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  

I hope this is good enough to start with. ISD (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In the magazine section there is no info on when the magazine closed down only when it started up. It would ne good to get some more info on the mag in general.

Will look at that in the next few days. --Nreive (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Have entered details about the final issue. --Nreive (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Some more detail on the propsed movie could be put in eg some of the stuff on the series VIII DVD would be good also how close has it got to being prduced before I heard that on several occasions it got green lighted and some story boards were drawn. Also I heard that the produciton company wanted to not use the british cast? Maybe more detail on that.

I have just re-written the movie section with as much relevant details as I could find. It's hard to find reliable sourced info on this. Unfortunately, I don't have the Series VIII DVD, but by all means put some info in there if you like. The more help the better :) --Nreive (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The Hallmarks section should probably be changed to vocabulary as thats all thats in it.

I admit that this section is pretty small, but I feel it explains the words used and why. --Nreive (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize as I haven't had a chance to thoroughly read the entire article but I will comment on some issues that caught my eye, I'm a terrible copy editor anyway and I've never seen the show so I couldn't comment on accuracy or grammar very well anyway. If I have a chance I'll try to go back and hit some more areas to see if I think of anything else.

• The lead section doesn't need citations for non-contentious statements such as "Red Dwarf is a British science fiction comedy franchise, the primary form of which comprises eight series of a television sitcom that ran on BBC2 between 1988 and 1999". I know there are some varied opinions on this though so it may simply be editorial choice but items that are discussed in detail later and cited there could go without citations in the lead.

Done I've removed some citations that from the lead that are covered else where. --Nreive (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The themes section appears to be sourced almost entirely from imdb which the last I checked was not generally considered to be a reliable source except for very basic information (Actors, airdates, etc.)

-Agreed. I'll have a look at this. --Nreive (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Have toned down on the imdb referencing and added some thrid party sources. Removed some others as well. --Nreive (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Referencing in general - the article draws heavily on reddwarf.co.uk and the smegazine which while I suspect these are reliable sources for production information and the like I'm not sure it is appropriate for things like the reception section. The critical reviews and reception information would benefit from more sources independent of the subject. I also notice some of the references appear to be to fan sites, I question again whether these can be considered reliable sources according to Wikipedia. I think a thorough search for reliable, independent sources would really benefit the article if you intend to eventually try for featured status.

-Agreed. I will also look into this. Thanks for the comments. --Nreive (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck, sorry my comments are rather vague. Stardust8212 23:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is looking good - but I did spot:

• that the picture caption in "Novels" claims "The first novel, Infinity Welcomes Careful Drivers, expanded on the Red Dwarf universe and became a best seller" but there is no citation to suport the claim of best seller status.

Done added citation. --Nreive (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• that units (miles & km) in "Setting & plot" should have the units linked on first occurance - you can use Template:Convert with the parameter "lk=on" for the first use.

Done --Nreive (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• should Cadmium be wikilinked Cadmium?

Done --Nreive (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• why is the link to Felis sapiens in bold?

Done removed bold. --Nreive (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• the first paragraph of "Writing, producing, and directing" is unreferenced

Done Added reference. --Nreive (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• in "achievements" International Emmy Award nominations needs a citation

Done --Nreive (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• should "Penguin Publishing" be wikilinked to Penguin Books?

Done --Nreive (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• does DVD Regions 1, 2 and 4 need to be explained or linked?

Done Wikilinked. --Nreive (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• should "Fleetway Editions" be linked to Fleetway?

Done --Nreive (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Flyer links to a disambiguation page

Done Sorted link. --Nreive (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• should it be British Film Council or UK Film Council?

Done Wikilinked. --Nreive (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• use the link checker for URLs in refs as [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Red_Dwarf the results shows some broken links

Done fixed/removed dead links. --Nreive (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are seen as useful & not too harsh as I feel this could get to FA without too much further work & it will get more severe criticism at that stage. — Rod ^talk 20:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, appreciated. --Nreive (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]