Wikipedia:Peer review/Fraggle Rock/archive1

Fraggle Rock

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on it lately. I feel this could be a featured article with a bit of work. Should some of the sections be moved to list articles? I think that's a big problem with the article: too many list sections. Does the link section need cleanup (many just look like fansites that aren't that notable)? Any other thoughts and suggestions are welcome.

Thanks, RobJ1981 (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A childhood fan of Fraggle Rock I felt compeled to review this article. Comments:

• Not enough references. Many paragraphs and even whole sections do not have any inline citations.
• The reference are not all formatted properly
• At least one reference has a space between it and the end of the sentence.
• I think this article needs some section devoted to the reception of Fraggle Rock by viewers. How popular and in which countries was it popular? Any kind of ratings information would be good.
• The long list of every fraggle character (other creatures) detracts from the article and adds very little value. Perhaps it can be spun off into another article.
• The cast section duplicates the list of characters section.
• The song list, book list, and soundtrack musicians do not seem to add at all to the article.
• The episodes section does not have any text beyond a link to the list of fraggle rock episodes. There should be some summary text that goes in this section to discuss the episodes.
• The lead section is quite good but some of the issues discussed in it are not addressed in the article (ratings, critical acclaim, the vision of fraggle rock being an allegory to the real world) and should be expanded upon in the article
• Some of the text consists of short and abrupt sentences which do not flow well together (such as section The television show).
• The external links section has some fan sites (but maybe these are full of useful information). At 6 sites (half of which are not fan sites) seems fine for the article.

Good luck improving the aricle. I think it needs some more work before it should be considered for GA status. Biomedeng (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)