This article has been built from pretty much the ground up by myself and ChrisTheDude over a period of about three-four months. It now provides an almost complete overview of the many years of this successful and long-running British institution, and also makes use of just about every available resource on the comic out there (which, sadly, isn't a massive amount). It's got pretty comprehensive citations, and every image used now has a fair use rationale attached. I submitted it for Good Article status, and got a quick response, SeizureDog saying that not only was it worthy of the green plus, but that he felt it had a good shout of being a FAC. After a bit more tidying up, therefore, I thought I'd bring it to Peer Review to see if anyone has any further suggestions for ways it might be tweaked. Seb Patrick 08:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
- Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
- Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
- Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space -
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
- Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
- Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
- Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
- There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
- As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
- Obviously I understand that, as they're automatically generated, not all the points are necessarily applicable, but I'll address them all one by one so that it's clear they've been thoroughly taken into account :
- Lead has been expanded to three paragraphs.
- There are no linked days, months or years. One full date is linked.
- I've looked at infoboxes in the past, but since the title refers to both a strip and a publication, I'm not sure if there's really an appropriate one to use.
- I don't think there are any units of measurement, so I don't think this one applies.
- Two headings begin with "The", but they refer to the titles of strips, so they're appropriate.
- There's no trivia section.
- Alphabetising of categories has been done per suggestion.
- The ToC has been a cause for concern, and in an earlier version certainly was too long. I've since trimmed it by combining some of the sections, and I think it's just about manageable now.
- I've tried to make the article as good as possible with regards to "weasel words" and the like. There are a few generalised statements referring to the strip's popularity and nostalgia value, but these are simply because they're reflecting a wide view rather than, say, one specific writer/critic. Wherever these phrases occur, I've made sure to cite an article that is representative of the view. If anyone spots such a phrase that has slipped through the net, please point out specifics to me and I'll address them.
- Footnotes all conform to style, now, I think.
- Again, I've worked hard on the writing style; I feel it's strong enough, now, but would appreciate any editorial comments that anyone has to make. Seb Patrick 09:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]