Wikipedia:Peer review/Lapitch the Little Shoemaker/archive1
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
It's getting one or more steps closer to B-Class (officially). Ever since I created this, a page on one of my favourite cartoons (and a really obscure one at that—much of America, I swear, still hasn't heard of it despite Disney Channel and Sony Wonder's best efforts!), I have neglected to look after it so much that there's been an incorrect plotline lying in it for many, many months...
Sorry for the very long (but grammatically sensible) sentence.
With that in mind, I now know how much Wikipedia lives up to its logo: it's one giant, complex puzzle we're still trying to fill in and solve.
Any comments? If you're reviewing, leave me feedback especially on the rewritten plot and cast/character sections.
(I really needed to do something like this to boost my now-dwindling edits.)
Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Not a review, yet, but...four redlinks in the lead? Including one (the fourth) that seems inexplicable. Redlinks should be used sparingly, where there is a realistic chance they might prompt an article, and you need to rethink your approach on this. Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: This sounds like a film I would enjoy. Here are some suggestions for improvement.
Lead
- The ideal lead should summarize the article without introducing material that is undeveloped in the main text sections. The material in the lead about the 1913 novel is interesting and important to include, but it doesn't seem to appear in the main text.
- Lapitch the Little Shoemaker (Croatian: Čudnovate zgode šegrta Hlapića) is a children's animated film, originally released in Croatian theatres in 1997 by Croatia Film." - Two of the links here are what might be called "Easter Egg links" because the reader can't guess what they link to. The link to 1997 in film looks like a link to 1997, which should not be linked per WP:MOSNUM. When I click on the link, it takes me to an article that does not seem to illuminate "Lapitch". I would simply unlink this one and others like it. To fix the first Easter Egg link, I'd suggest re-casting the sentence, thus: "Lapitch the Little Shoemaker (Croatian: Čudnovate zgode šegrta Hlapića) is an animated film for children that was originally released in Croatian theatres in 1997 by Croatia Film. I'd also be inclined to unlink Croatia Film or to create at least a stub article to expand the encyclopedia and turn the red link blue.
- Wikilink cel? Many readers will not know what it means.
- "and the title character is a mouse (as opposed to human roles in the original work)" - Suggestion: "and the title character is a mouse rather than the human character of the original work"
- "who leaves the confines of his mean master" - "Mean" strikes me as not quite the right word. Maybe "grouchy", "overbearing", "domineering", or something else slightly more specific than "mean" would be better.
- "Its popularity led to the production of a 26-episode spinoff television series... " - Rather than linking a long expression like this, it's good practice to make a more efficient link. Suggestion: "Its popularity led to the production of a 26-episode Lapitch the Little Shoemaker television series." This sentence also makes clear that the production is a spinoff, so the word "spinoff" is not needed.
- "In February 2000, it received its North American debut as the first entry in Sony Wonder's short-lived "Movie Matinee" video series. The Disney Channel also premiered it on U.S. cable television later that same month." - I don't think "received" is the right word. Suggestion: "In February 2000, it first appeared in North America as the initial entry in Sony Wonder's short-lived "Movie Matinee" video series."
Plot
- "Lapitch has to make sure the boots are the right size" - For clarity, this should probably say "the pigs' boots".
- "When the piglet tries to fit them in... " - Suggestion: "When the piglet tries to put them on... "
- "Lapitch wants to know why, but Scowler vows only to tell him when he is older" - Who vows, Scowler or Mistress Scowler?
- "and goes off into the village streets, wearing the boots he was scolded with" - He wasn't scolded "with" the boots. How about "wearing the piglet's boots"?
- "The following morning, however, Brewster happens to join him for the same reasons" - It's not clear what "the same reasons" refers to. Was Brewster also scolded? Does Scowler yell at the dog?
- I did some minor copyediting to tighten the prose a bit in the rest of this section. I'd suggest combining some of the short paragraphs to make slightly longer paragraphs. It would also be a good idea to ask another editor to copyedit the whole article after any re-writes. I don't believe I caught every minor error.
Characters
- MOS:BOLD generally frowns on bolding except in the first line of the lead and in places such as section heads or in templates that insert it automatically. The bolding of the characters' names does not seem to meet the guidelines.
- Actually, I'm not sure you need this section at all. It mostly repeats what the "Plot" section already says. The Croatian names for the characters may be the only new information in this section, and they could be moved into the "Plot" section.
Cast
- For efficiency, I'd suggest merging the table and list into a single table with a separate column for the English-dubbed version.
Production
- "before heading on to helm 1986's 'The Elm-Chanted Forest' - "Helm" is not quite the right word. Maybe "direct"?
- Since you've listed the casts for the Croatian version and the Canadian version, why not the German version?
Release and production
- Suggestion: Move the ISBN into the footnote rather than embedding it in the text.
TV series
- The Manual of Style generally deprecates one-and two-sentence paragraphs and sections as short as this one. I'd suggest merging this section with the one above it and merging several of the short paragraphs throughout the article with other short paragraphs with a similar thrust.
I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)