Wikipedia:Peer review/Futurama/archive2

Futurama edit

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 I would like to get it to FA status. I know the article is not yet perfect, but it is (in my opinion) in a much better shape than when previously reviewed as a GA/FA candidate. As it is a large article, I'd like to know what specific areas are worth focusing on.

Thanks, Dorsal Axe 11:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonade51 comments -- I think the article has a long way to go before it can be nominated for a WP:FAC. Some areas, such as 'Setting' and 'Themes' are well-written but a lack of citations in certain areas and prose problems lets it down. I've only skim read and below are the main concerns/ideas:

For inspiration, I suggest taking a look at other WP:FAC's related to the topic. The obvious, of course being The Simpsons.
Ask yourself this: does WP:LEAD provide a summary of the show? Does "In March 2011, it was announced that Futurama has been renewed for a seventh season, consisting of at least 26 episodes, scheduled to air in 2012 and 2013", really need to be included in the lead?
Would be nice if someone could find a picture of David Herman.
Under 'Opening sequence', "This was first trialled in the opening sequence for "Mars University", however it was realised", should it be 'realized' because it's an American program → American English?
Under 'Cancellation and revival': "Groening and Cohen wanted Futurama to be shown at 8:30", 8:30 am? pm?
Under 'setting' why is New New York italicised in the second sentence, but not in the first. I know it's to stress the passive voice but WP:CONSISTENCY
Crossbred does not need to be hyphenated.
"In the French dubbing of the show, German is used as the extinct language instead.", source for that?
'International broadcast' could have some prose above the table, providing a summary of Futurama in other countries. Needs to be fully sourced where applicable. There is an extra column in the table I think.
"Journalist/critic Frank Lovece" → Journalist and critic Frank Lovece...
Is there a series summary table, like The_Simpsons#Broadcast? Perhaps you could follow that layout.
Likewise, is there a page for awards and nominations? Instead of listing all in this article, it could be summarized.
With references, be consistent with the date format; is it 15-04-2012 or 15 April 2012?
Is Ref 74 a reliable source?
Ref 77 is a YouTube link and therefore can't be considered a reliable source. There could be a copyright problem; see WP:YT for more information.
For Ref 99, the work is 'BBC Cult' and the publisher is 'BBC'. I notice it was published in 2002, not 2001.
Refs 120, 121 and 122 look like barelinks.
Two dablinks need fixing.
Three dead links. – Lemonade51 (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]