Wikipedia:Peer review/Double act/archive1
Double act[edit]
This article was nominated for Good article status by User:Crestville, not because it was considered to qualify but in order to elicit comments. I'm requesting a peer review for the article as a more appropriate way of achieving that. Issues that have been raised on the article's talk page include the lack of cited references and the difficulty in defining a double act. EALacey 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
EALacey[edit]
My own comments follow.
- As has been noted, the article is very short on references. It won't be sufficient simply to provide references for all the factual details; much of the article is analysis, which needs to be sourced to reliable sources or removed as original research.
- The lead section ought to provide an overview of the rest of the article. At the moment, it's largely concerned with definitions, and doesn't reflect the content of the sections below.
- I think the "History" section overlaps too much with the geographical sections "United Kingdom" and "USA". The latter in particular seems to contain little unique material besides names.
- It might be more accurate to talk about the "personas" of a comic duo, rather than their "personalities".
- Some of the analysis in the History section needs development. How was it, for example, that The Two Ronnies "completely dispensed with the need for a "straight man"", or that The Mighty Boosh "essentially remained traditional at their roots"? How are Ant and Dec "basic yet effective"?
- I don't understand the sentence under "1970s" about Saturday Night Live. It "provided" comedians to whom?
- I don't know much about Vic and Bob, but did they really "deconstruct" light entertainment? I suspect another word may have been intended.
- This is a direct quote from a documantary analysing the history of light entertainment, so you would have to ask Stephen Fry--Crestville 15:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- "Peter Cook and Dudley Moore perhaps also deserve a mention as being the first double act to go against the grain..." Either they deserve a mention, in which case there's no need for "perhaps", or it's not clear that they do, in which case the whole sentence should go. (If the sentence is supposed to mean they were "perhaps the first double act to go against the grain", then move the word "perhaps".)
- The characters in Porridge "endured a relationship of mutual respect"? At least one word in that sentence needs changing.
- On the positive side, the article's prose is pleasant to read, especially in the "History" section. EALacey 21:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)