Wikipedia:Peer review/Gregory House/archive4

Gregory House

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the article is ready for FA status.

Thanks, Talktome^(Intelati) 01:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Question: You do not sppear to have edited this article, nor have you been in contact, as far as I can see, with the main editors. Are you in a position to respond to a detailed peer review? This may require detailed knowledge of the subject and the sources used. Also, if you haven't done so, it would be a courtesy to inform the main editors that you are interested in getting this to FAC, and to invite their participation. Brianboulton (talk) 09:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't contributed to the article as there is nothing that I see is missing. The major contributor is the community. The changes have been slow with editors adding small bits at a time. I am a fan of House, so I feel I am able to successfully complete this review.--Talktome^(Intelati) 20:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• Lead
  • Antihero = Protagonist (it's a more specific declaration), therefor it doesn't need both descriptors. Danger: This descriptor is apparently unsourced (and doesn't appear in the article body), a big no-no.
  • The lead could use a bit more on the actual design and creation of the character, as well as its depiction by Laurie.
  • The description of the character accolades is fairly good, but I don't think TV Overmind should be called out in the lead, and the final sentence is redundant: "In making a list of the 100 greatest television characters of all time, TV Guide selected Gregory House as the greatest TV character of all time."
• Character history
  • This section can be condensed mightily, cutting out blow-by-blow "House says this; in episode X later, Y happens"-type stuff. without going blow-by-blow. Things that don't have as much bearing on the history of the show itself (as in, his youth, his schooling, etc.) can be cut down the most, as it's all fictional anyhow.
  • "(House eventually diagnosed the infarction himself)" missing period, don't need the parenthetical structure
• Personality
  • Once again, another section that can be cut. A good rule of measure here is to stick to whatever can be sourced to the creators or important critics; if it's sourced to an episode, it's probably not that important or it goes into excessive detail (that is hard to definitively support if you're using the entire episode as a primary source. ) In this context, secondary sources are good.
  • "and his addiction goes into remission, so to say" what the heck does this mean? It's not encyclopedic writing.
• Development
  • Many of the issues with the in-universe depiction elements could probably be minimized in part by putting the development section before the in-universe aspects.
  • "Laurie chose not to change his clothing, but to remain in the costume he wore for the film, he also decided not to shave his beard." Comma splice, and not clear exactly that "the film" is the previously-mentioned Flight of the Pheonix.
  • The comparisons to Sherlock Holmes start getting a bit too granular by end, for example: "In episode 89, House is talking to Lucas and he says, "There is only one truth," which was a famous Sherlock Holmes quote.".
• Misc.
  • You've got all this good reception information in the lead, but it's not in the body. This is essential, and is the biggest criticism I can levy at this article. If I were reviewing this article, I would not have passed this at WP:GAN, and wouldn't at WP:FAC, without this section. Why does this article deserve to exist? Why is this character so important?
• References that don't seem to be reliable: Zap2It, Popmatters, Blog critics. What makes these reliable or high quality (WP:FA?
  • Current ref #29 is malformed.
  • I would strongly suggest using Archive.org or Webcitation.org to find or create archives of all online links, as you want to ward off linkrot and the decay of substantiation and verifiability.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments I agree with everything written above. I had a few comments to add.

• The first sentence of the lead says Gregory House, M.D., is a fictional protagonist antihero of the American medical drama House. In addition to antihero = protagonist as noted above, he is also "the ... protagonist" of the show - "a protagonist antihero" implies that there are somehow more than one in the program.
• I wonder if the character history might be organized thematically - perhaps a paragraph on his history, one on his relations to family, friend(s), and lovers, perhaps one on his relations with his colleagues and patients, perhaps one on his leg and drug addiction. That might avoid the minute details of the current format.
• There are two free images of Hugh Laurie in his article that might be used here - he looks very House-like in one. Perhaps put one near some of
• There are also two free images of Shore and as the creator of the character I would use at least one of him in this article.

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)