Wikipedia:Peer review/Night of the Living Dead/archive1

Night of the Living Dead

This article has been expanded greatly to make it more comprehensive. Please comment on any issues at all that could potentially prevent it becoming featured, no matter how minor. Thanks. Dmoon1 23:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy _t 15:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review posted below: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
- Recently refers to "recently deceased" in the film, another term for the soon-to-be living dead. Dmoon1 02:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
- Fixed. Dmoon1 02:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
- Found no instances where this was linked incorrectly. Dmoon1 02:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please alphabetize the categories and/or interlanguage links.
This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
- Fixed. Dmoon1 02:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
Thanks, Andy _t 15:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for generating this semi-automatic peer review. Dmoon1 02:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the reception really should be part of the production section, as it deals with the distribution. As well, you may want to get someone to copyedit it.--P-Chan 18:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Only half the first paragraph deals with the search for a distributor. The remaining paragraph details distribution in a similar manner as other FA film articles. It's still in the copy-edit process. Thanks for looking at it. If you think of anything else, please let me know. Dmoon1 19:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, which it is, then you should probably incorporate the first half of the paragraph into the production section, and leave the rest in with the reception. --P-Chan 04:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was hesitant to move the information, thinking it might break the flow or something, but I followed your suggestion. I think it looks better. What do you think? Dmoon1 05:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! :)--P-Chan 04:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Andy _t and P-Chan. Is there anything else that needs to be done??? Dmoon1 02:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Cleanup If I were you, I'd submit it to the Clean-up board now. (It takes a while to get results). Write in your request that you are looking to get the prose up to an FA level. Cheers.--P-Chan 06:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Hope the prose isn't THAT bad. Dmoon1 06:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]