Wikipedia:Peer review/Ross Kemp in Afghanistan/archive1

Ross Kemp in Afghanistan

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

I would like to know how to improve it further.

Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 20:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and i have taken them all into account as i edited this article. I will further edit this article in the future and add the sections you have both recommended once i find details on them. One again thank you, Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 11:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article on a show I have never seen. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• The picture in the Infobox is huge - 472 pixels wide. Most infobox pictures are 300 px wide at most.
• The first sentence does not follow WP:LEAD and could perhaps be rewritten as "Ross Kemp in Afghanistan is a five part documentary series by BAFTA award-winning actor Ross Kemp, following the 1st Battalion of the British Army's Royal Anglian Regiment during their deployment to Afghanistan's Helmand Province." Put the most important things in the first sentence - I am not sure the roles for which Kemp is known even belong in the lead, and they certainly do not belong in the first sentence.
• Also per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the whole article and nothing should be just in the lead. My rule of thumb is to make sure all the headers are in the lead. This lead needs to be rewritten.
• A model article is often useful for ideas, examples, style and structure. There are several television FAs and GAs - pick one or two and see what they do that this needs to.
• I would have some sort of background section which gave the information on Kemp currently in the lead. I would also give some background on the Regiment and Battalion he was with.
• The article should probably have a history section that focuses on the show itself - who came up with the idea for the show, how was it developed, etc.
• Also missing is any sort of critical reception section - did the show get good ratings, what did critics say about it, etc.
• The references are incomplete - several things need to have citations added - see WP:CITE and WP:V
• The existing refs need more information - internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. The {{cite web}} and other cite templates may help.
• Article needs a copy edit to fix some typos and clean up the text.
• Any more details on the casualties than just a list?

Hope this helps, sounds like an interesting show Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Collectonian

• Echo Ruhrfisch on the image in the infobox. It should be at the standard size of 250px. No need to have bigger.
• The episode list needs to be formatted using {{episode list}} and the summaries do not need to be sourced (airdates, however, do).
• Consider reworking "The Regiment" section into plain prose, without the subsection, on production, and give some additional context. Right now, it just seems like a weird section kinda thrown in the middle of things.
• Maybe work the deaths into the episode summaries instead of just having a list if the last suggestion is taken, and give some context
• As per those two sections, a production section is needed. The lead hints at some of the content to go there, such as Kemp deciding to do the series, how he prepped, etc. The history mentioned above would be appropriate here. See the MoS for additional suggestions on the content needed here.
• A reception section is also needed, if possible
• I also second Ruhrfisch's comments about the need to clean up the refs and add in the missing information, and I encourage the use fo teh cite web template. Helps show what info you need.

While it seems to mostly focus on fictional series, the [Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write about television programs |TV MoS]] is still very useful for determining sections and section orders in non-fiction works. With the suggested expansions done, I good copy edit should have it ready for reassessment. :) Collectonian (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)