Wikipedia:Peer review/Cheers/archive1

Cheers[edit]

I've been trying to improve the Cheers article as much as I can. Other than a screenshot of the Simpsons crossover (I have a request out), however, I'm not sure what to do next. Despite the recent FA'ing of Arrested Development and The West Wing (which I helped with), there is no truly consistent style to follow, so any help would be great! Thanks! Staxringold 01:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry this took so long but I've completed a full review and posted it here. Here are my main concerns from the top of the article:

Consistent usage of "character (actor)" format
Consistent usage of literary present tense, when applicable
Grammar needs a complete read through when content issues are resolved
I cannot cannot canot say it enough: REF/NOTE! Almost everything needs a reference... this is the downfall of many a decent article. Find those references!

We've got potential here! Feel free to ask about any of my comments or completely ignore some of them. Thanks! -Scm83x 11:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the article to your large Review. Please give me a follow up, or somebody else post! :) Staxringold 17:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, it's much better than it was. So a few observations. 1) If international syndication was important, the lead should mention it too. Not if not of course. 2) The trivia section has got to go. You'll get killed for that at FAC. Points in there are either better off merged in somewhere else, or not important enough to be in the article at all. 3) Eliminate the one or two sentence paragraphs. They show areas that should either be merged with related material, expanded, or removed. 4) The themes section should either be renamed to something like 'Other recurring thems' or similar or merged in with the rest of the Plot section which could easily be seen as themes. The feminism bit is probably given waay too much space for it's relative importance on the show. A FA should be organized in relation to the importance of each subtopic. I think the cast table really breaks up the article, but I can't think of a better way. - Taxman ^Talk 22:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Editing up the sections to remove trivia, combine short paragraphs, and altered some sections/subsections. No mention of international syndication in the lead other than the "long and successful syndication run" mention, but a syndication section. Let me know what you think! Staxringold 03:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, improvements overall, the biggest problem left is #3 above. I can see why you've done it in some cases, but it still isn't great writing. A FA should be able to be structured in a way that it doesn't need any. The romance section could use another couple sentences for ex, and the one sentence paragraphs leading off some of the sections could probably just be merged with the next paragraph. The other's just need creative expansion or merging. With that done, there's nothing I can think of that it is missing to be ready for FAC. - Taxman ^Talk 14:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to further touch-up per your request. Also revamped images (replaced a couple dull images with clearer, more colorful, better images) and added the kiss image for romance. Staxringold 00:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lilith, when first mentioned, was both unlinked and unexplained (ppl who have not seen Frasier will not know who she is). I have corrected it and done some minor tweaks. Nice use of inline citations to explain and document important facts. Issue to expand upon: write more upon the 'classic' Cheers opening theme.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking very good compared to the first time I saw it. All in all, though, it seems very fragmented. There seems to be little meat regarding the show itself with the exception of a fragmented Plot section that isn't consistent in its discussion topics at all. Here's a few comments for now:
- Critical reactions. This is a really skimpy section. With a show as big and as important in our cultural zeitgeist as this one is, I'd expect much more meat to this section. Try a local library; for The West Wing (television), Scm83x were able to head to ours and find a few books filled with essays and such regarding the show. Cheers might take a bit more work, as it's not, let's say, academically useful as TWW, but, regardless, this section needs some fleshing out.

Absolutely, I just added the stubby section so it's at least there (over the holidays I don't have as much time to edit). Staxringold 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Plot. I'm one to prefer how you did the plot section. However, in FAC, you're going to get eaten alive for not having a summary of the entire show's plot in your article. There's no section simply dealing with what happened in each season. Is it necessary? I'm not so sure. But it's definitely not going to fly with the people at FAC. In addition, the way you've done all the subsections seems very fragmented. Some sections are really, really small; regardless, "Social class in Cheers" is not under the same type of discussion as "The Finale."

Maybe mix some of the subsections for just "Social Issues in Cheers"? Dunno, again, after the holidays I'll make some major additions. Staxringold 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Post-Cheers. I'm having some problems distinguishing between this section and "Spinoffs and Crossovers." In addition, how important is the careers of all of the actors after the show? This is an article about the show, not the actor's lives. -Rebelguys2 21:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to keep it as connected to Cheers as I could. And I thought it was interesting how Cheers (despite it's success) is somewhat like Seinfeld and the Seinfeld curse in basically no one having a truly successful project after Cheers (save Grammer, like Seinfeld, as the one success). Staxringold 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok folks, I've melded the sections into Social Issues and added addiction, and I'm working on the critical reaction section right now. Any other big ideas that need adding or mistakes that need polishing? Staxringold 23:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]