This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FAc sometime soon. However, I feel the "storyline" section is too long and I would like some input on how to slim it down. Also, every minor edit, tip, hint, extra information, whatever is welcome because there are always ways to improve an article.
Thanks, --Music26/11 22:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, there. You're right, the Storyline section is too long indeed, and the article lacks a Characterization/Characteristics/Character description section. So what you could do is split the Storyline into Storyline and Character sections. Basically the Storyline section is about what the character does, and the Character section is about what the character is. In the Storyline section you say things like "In "Words and Deeds", Tritter brings House to the court, etc." and in the Character section, you say things like "Tritter demonstrates stubborness and obsessive behaviour, etc."
- Lead : the lead is supposed a summary of the article. There should be a mention of who is Tritter: policeman and having a feud with House and why; some words about his personality would be good too. Bear in mind that you don't have to reference what you say in the lead if it's already referenced in the article.
- "somebody who could go toe-to-toe..." "the story seemed to drag on a bit..." "the exchange of words goes downhill from there..." are rather colloquial; try to avoid it and reword your sentences : "the dialog increases in intensity until..."
- Check your links so that they point to the right article; for example STD, put sexually transmitted disease instead and check if there are others things to disambiguate
- "House then talks to Wilson, who tells House that he told Tritter that he prescribes House's vicodin" : who told whom to prescribe what ? :D This sentence is confusing, it should be reworded
- "Cuddy says that if this is true that it should be handled by doctors" : "Cuddy says that if this is true, (then) it should be handled by doctors"
- "Tritter replies that the doctors at Plainsboro aren't dealing with it, they're covering it up" : Remove all contractions that are not quoted : "the doctors are not dealing with it, they are covering it up"
- "2006, actor David Morse was contacted by David Shore, Morse and Shore had previously worked together on Hack.[18][2]": "In 2006, actor David Morse..." Did Shore contact Morse because they had worked together previously ? Make it clear, and put the references in order : [2][18]
- "Tritter says he would rather "beat the crap out of" House than sue him, but an apology will do. However, House refuses to apologize." Shorten your sentences to avoid redundancy: "Tritter says he would rather "beat the crap out of" House than sue him, but House refuses to apologize."
- Character development : the information should be organized by subject, i.e. A) How did they design the character, what was he intended for ? (annoy House) B) Who did they cast (Morse) and why ? C) Did Morse influence his character ? To which extend ? Did Tritter evolve after the casting or even the airing of episode ? D) Did Tritter leave a legacy ? Will he be remembered for something ? Did he make the series evolve? Is he referred to in other series or works of popular culture ?
Otherwise the article is well referenced with a wide variety of sources. You might also want to take a look at Khan Noonien Singh, a recent FA, to get more ideas. Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the review, I've fixed almost all of your points, note that the character has no legacy, it seems that most House viewers were just happy he left the show. One other thing that I didn't do is the "Storyline" section, it's really hard to slim it down any further, because almost all the information is necessary, I would really like input on this. Thanks. --Music26/11 21:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I certainly was happy he left, as well ;D Other thoughts:
- The lead has improved, but you've reached the other end of the spectrum and the first paragraph is now too detailed. All these details about their feud should be in the body of the article. Keep the thermometer bit because it's what everyone remembers, but summarize the rest. Remove "butt" at any cost. The third season was in 2006-2007; put it in the lead. Tritter got mixed reviews, what about Morse ?
- Storyline section : Clearly say from which episode the stuff comes. Actually, he only appears in six episodes, right ? You can enumerate them at the beginning (you might add the airdate of the first and last episode). Then in the section you can say, "In "Fools For Love", Tritter does this and that..." Now you just tell the story as if it was real, which looks like in-universe writing. You'll get teared apart at FAC if you leave it like that. Keep an outside perspective. On the bright side, I think the section has the right length now. You did a good job at summarizing it.
- The Character development section is only about Morse, is there more info about how Tritter was conceived ? And mention that Tritter was intended to be as smart and nasty as House, because that's what the character is about in the first place. (Don't forget : State the obvious.)
- The Reception section is extremely well-referenced, but a bit confusing; one gets the impression that you just put one review after the other in the order you found them. Maybe you can make a paragraph with the opinions about Morse and another paragraph with the opinions about Tritter ?
- Don't forget the copyedit if it's not already done.
Okay, that's all I can think of. The references can stand a good punch, the image has a tag, it's fine ;D FAC is sure a long way to go, so good luck with it. Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]