Wikipedia:Peer review/February 8/archive1
February 8[edit]
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
 | This review has been closed as suitable for a direct nomination. Your request has been reviewed and is considered suitable for direct nomination. No issues have been identified that couldn't be ironed out during the nomination process. Good luck! |
Spent a few weeks cleaning up the article and bringing it up to DOY citation standards but would appreciate further feedback regarding any areas in need of additional editing. I'm planning on nominating this article as a FL candidate following the end of the peer review. Best, Dan the Animator 23:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Pamzeis[edit]
Some general points:
- Make sure abbreviations are defined using {{abbr}} (e.g. "d." and "b.")
- Apparently the wikiproject consensus is against using the template but I opened a new discussion on the project page to make sure
- Check for MOS:ALLCAPS issues in refs
Done
- Make sure all work titles are formatted properly (e.g. www.brittanica.com → Encyclopædia Britannica)
- Done I've also went through all the refs a few times and fixed any and all issues I could find so hopefully the citations should be all good now
- Deadline Hollywood should be in italics
- Done I found a better source from the LA Times so I just replaced it
Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
P.S. Are there any other articles on dates that are FLs??
- Thanks @Pamzeis:! See above for my specific comments on each point. About the DOY articles tho, I don't think there's any FL-rated article yet so this'll be the first one! :) If it helps though for comparisons, there are some year articles (ex: 2001) that are GAs, although those have a very different formatting and a lot more sub-articles. In any case, let me know if there's anything else I can do with the article and whether I've addressed all your points. Cheers, Dan the Animator 22:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Given that over a week has passed since my reply, I've addressed every point raised thoroughly, and I've looked over the article countless times since then and can't find any other issues with it, as the peer review nominator, I am going to close the review discussion and direct nominate it for FL status. Best, Dan the Animator 19:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks @Pamzeis:! See above for my specific comments on each point. About the DOY articles tho, I don't think there's any FL-rated article yet so this'll be the first one! :) If it helps though for comparisons, there are some year articles (ex: 2001) that are GAs, although those have a very different formatting and a lot more sub-articles. In any case, let me know if there's anything else I can do with the article and whether I've addressed all your points. Cheers, Dan the Animator 22:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)