| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this page is a bit of a mess and I would like to know how to clean it up without dramatically changing it.
Thanks, Nascarking 15:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comments from Jappalang
Yes, this is a mess that should not have been brought to peer review. Wikipedia's peer review process "is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." This instruction is clearly stated at the top. As a courtesy, I am going to state the biggest obvious problems with this article, but that is it. It is up to interested editors to bring the article in line with encylopaedic and project standards before asking for a peer review.
- The article exhibits a heavy slant towards recentism; this is not a fan- or news-site. It is an encyclopaedia meant to give an overall view of the subject over the ages in equal proportions to its notability. The 2006 to 2010 subsections (in fact, basically the entire Show history) are basically a "this happened, that happened" format, without any critical commentary or evaluation on how the show has changed over the years or the reception towards it. This problem is endemic to the entire article. There is no critical analysis of the subject. It is basically production notes, show listings, and a bunch of tables.
- Several unsourced statements.
- Why is there another Infobox in the later part of the article?
- All the copyrighted logos are violations of WP:NFCC unless a clear rationale is given on how they comply with all ten criteria or are not protected by copyrights. The same goes for File:Yokozunafujiraw.jpg
Please bring the article to peer review only when the article has been brought up to shape with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and is intended to go for higher level assessments (GA and FA). Jappalang (talk) 08:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)