Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (U.S. TV series)/archive2

Heroes (TV series)

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

Introduction and Welcome

I am requesting that this article be peer reviewed. I has gone through so much progress since its last review and looks totally different than it did when it was first reviewed. I also hope to get a larger number of editors to review the page, as only two editors reviewed the page the first time it was reviewed last year. I acknowledge that the reflist needs major major clean up to meet Wikipedia standards...but I and I am sure the other project members would love to know what other improvements we can all make to this page to get it to featured article status. Please review this article entirely and if you have time, take a look at the subpages and other Heroes related pages located in the template at the bottom of the article. Please help us improve this article! Your thoughts matter! (smile)--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A start... the automated peer review script says:

...Please don't use level 3 headings in peer reviews, apart from at the top, of course. :-) Geometry guy 18:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 00:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've let the script clean up a number of technical issues... for some reason, it has altered the Hollywood Reporter URLs, so I'll fix that next. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It also changed a couple of single brackets inside quotations into double brackets, resulting in erroneous article links. I think I fixed all of those but it's hard to be sure, since there were so many changes in that one edit. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 12:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts from User:Casliber

OK, I am not too fond of quotes unless necessary - this one The show tells the story of several people who "thought they were like everyone else... until they realized they have incredible abilities." - strikes me as unremarkable and hence would be better rephrased without quotes. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Fixed and changed--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The series began development - I know what you mean but sounds odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 10:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Fixed and changed--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In keeping with the comic book thematic elements used in the show, professional comic book artist Tim Sale was brought in to provide the artwork used as the work of Isaac Mendez, including Mendez's comic book, the 9th Wonders!. - this sentence I am not sure what it is trying to say at the end regarding Mendez —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 10:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Fixed and changed--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

He states that everyone that production wanted to go after came in and read for the respective part. - umm..huh? Had to read that one twice too...may wanna reword. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Fixed and changed--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

and post it to a breakdown service. - a what? Need to explain this one. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Fixed and changed--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• The Recurring elements section needs to be formulated into a cohesive paragraph rather than just listy. There is good stuff there, the trick will be expanding without going into OR.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Beware of stubby paras, many in the latter part of the article can be combined.

• Expand legal/copyright issues. Section is a bit stubby but fascinating. All Real World stuff is good and should be embellished whereever possible. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts from User:Dansiman

• "Sometimes the next episode begins exactly where the previous episodes cliffhanger ended, although this is not always the case." "Sometimes … not always" is redundant. This paragraph could also benefit from mention of the fact that some episodes actually duplicate some of the footage from the end of the scene from the previous episode (in fact I suspect that, at least sometimes, the two clips are shot at the same time), outside the context of the "Previously…" segment, which isn't clear from the current wording.
• Also, in the mythology section there is a mention of the number 9, but this seems really minor, and should probably be contained to the main article Mythology of Heroes.
• The Casting section is really tough to read, especially with the ref tags' superscript throwing off the line spacing.

Otherwise, looks pretty good to me. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 12:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"Tough to read" is vague and the ref tags are necessary. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, sorry about that. What I meant is that it was a fairly large block of text, with very little whitespace, and as it was then, it wass very easy to lose your place while reading it, because almost every line had a different amount of spacing from the next. I realize that the ref tags can't be removed, and I wasn't suggesting that. Rather, I thought it should be either broken up into more paragraphs, or have more prose added so that there are many more lines without ref tags than with, when the page is rendered. Looking at it now, though, it's already been improved a lot, especially with the moving of the cast picture down beside it. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 11:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. I hope you don't mind that I moved your comment so there's no confusion about who posted what.

Thoughts from User:Alexfusco5

The article is referenced very well and is interesting for the casual reader. The sources all meet WP:CITE and WP:V, and the external links section is great. I can see from the history that the dates have now been linked properly. To improve the article I would suggest expanding the Radio section because it is a little confusing. Hope this helps Alexfusco⁵ 18:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts from User:Arcayne

Overall, its made some pretty great strides (thank jeebus for the writer's strike, which allowed for a breather!).

Lead

• The use of italics in the lead (" thought they were like everyone else... until they realized they have incredible abilities"), presumably to address a direct quote from the series, simply doesn't belong. It's in-universe, it isn't marked with quotation marks, it isn't cited - the list goes on, but the main thrust is that it does not flow with the lead. it needs to be removed, to my reckoning.
• the sentence right after that ("These people soon realize they have a role in preventing catastrophe and saving humanity") is also in-universe and inaccurate. Some heroes end up as fueling sites for Sylar before any role is realized, and Sylar is certainly not into preventing catastrophe or saving humanity. A better way to phrase this sentence is to address the main thrust is how these people deal withthese new abilities and how they act upon them.

Main characters and Cast

• I am going to renew the objection to the connecting ofthe characters' abilities with the list of superpowers from Wikipedia. It is, be any definition of the word, synthesis. If it has not been defined via cited reference, we should not be able to use our judgment to assign the ability ourselves. This is something that will come back to bite Wikipedia on the ass, as some wiki-lawyering dope is going to insist that this sets a precedent for synthesis. When i first brought the matter up somewhat privately with another, more senior editor, he pooh-poohed it as not all that important, but at this point, i am not so sure.

Mythology

• "Kring has used volumes to wrap-up ongoing plot lines, rather than carrying storylines over long periods of time, as in Lost" Why does this require no less than six citations? Is this statement really so controversial that we cannot pick the most durable and illuminating of the citations and use that one all by its lonesome?

Legal and copyright issues

• I think the Emerson lawsuit could be merged into a single paragraph and trimmed down drastically. I mean, if some moron sticks their hand down a garbage disposal, it isn't a tv show's fault - the dolt is just on the short list for a Darwin Award. The paragraph about the infringement with Crossing Jordan is fine the way it is, though.

That's my input. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts from User:Chrisisinchrist

I think one of the many main focus on the article is the ref section. the refs are great becuase they are verifiable and from great sources, however, they need to be rewriten to meet quality standards. any editors who have experience with this are encouraged to do so. I noticed on the history page that many editors have already begun to fix the lazy refs, but they cant do it all on their own. they need help.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia has a great website which helps you generate reference tags for articles that fall within Wikipolicy for citing sources. You can link to the site here [1] for any users interested in cleaning up all the refs--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Radio section- Whats up with this stubby section? I dont live in UK, but i checked the BBC7 radio website, and there is not info about this show and it is not on the websites show schedule. is it on hiatus? does anyone who lives in the UK have some out of universe info on this? Otherwise, I recommend it be merged with another paragraph, because their really isnt any info in the current stub paragraph. It says the show airs saturdays at 7:30. is that am or pm? also, is the show on hiatus? this sect needs to be expanded or combined with another sect or para.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine that as Heroes is off-air, so is the radio show Ged UK (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

lol...I understand that...I am just saying, do we have a verified source that states this as well...not just an educated guess...--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts from User:WikiRocks

On another note, the page is very bland and boring. A picture of the cast and maybe a few others, e.g. of production, DVD cover etc. would really brighten up the page. ЩіκіRocкs^(talκ) 15:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• The DVD release table is too big, and has uneccessary info. It should be changed into one like there is on LOST. It would look really good. ЩіκіRocкs^(talκ) 05:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• The awards section is out of date. ЩіκіRocкs^(talκ) 05:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• A ratings table would be great! Even though we have the info written as prose under USA, it would look really good. ЩіκіRocкs^(talκ) 05:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, i agree...the page does need some photos. if anyone is good at getting photos and writting fair use rationales for them, please do so, because the page needs it. we at least need a picture of the cast. Also, in what way is the awards section out dated? I dont think heroes has won anywa awards during the 2007-2008 award season and wasnt nominated either.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added a cast photo. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added a ratings chart for the US rankings--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The chart is great and so is the photo. The only thing about the photo is that if you are just browsing the page, you can't really see the faces of the cast, it's just a blur. But I'm not saying I don't like it, I asked for something and you did it, so I thank you. I just hope we can get another one if possible. As for the awards section, I just assumed it was out of date. I guess not. And as for the DVD section, I don't know if you noticed, but I removed a bit of the table and changed it to prose. Do you like it? ЩіκіRocкs^(talκ) 04:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the DVD section, I know there is repetitive info, but I made it like that so that we could merge the whole table into prose. I wasn't sure if I should also add the release dates to the prose, and delete the table. I left it so that a decision could be made, and then appropriate changes would be made. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 06:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts from User:Padillah

And I pretty much mean that literally. Right now have a problem with the two "billing" columns in the cast table. The "Staring" one is wishy-washy at best, this info is noted on the various stars pages and doesn't really add anything to an overview of the series. The "Recurring" is just not needed. Are we going to keep a history of the cast changes as this goes through the many (I hope) seasons? And, again, this info is noted on the respective character pages so it doesn't need to be here in particular. Padillah (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems important enough to me. If I want to know about a show, I want to know who is in it and how significant they are. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts from User:iTocapa

Looks great, in my opinion. Only two changes I can think of at the moment are perhaps a rewrite of the "Episode format" section; and move the character list to the actual character list article. Other than that, great job. --iTocapa ^iChat 00:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts from User:Seegoon

Here we go.

• "The series emulates the style of American comic books in aesthetic as well as storytelling" - shouldn't this be "it's aesthetic", or "aesthetic style"?
• "The first season's run consisted of 23 episodes; 24 episodes were ordered for the second season" - I think the semicolon should just be an "and".
• "which was originally expected to air in April and May 2008" - this is future tense, why does it say "was"?
• "during pilot season" - I personally don't know what this means - it might be an Americanisation problem.
• You shouldn't link to single years (2006, 2007), per WP:MOS.
• From what I've read so far, the tone is a little informal. Stuff like "He began thinking about how big, scary and complicated the world is" doesn't sound mega-encylopaedic to me.
• Is "suspenseful" a word?
• "This collaboration is important because production need to shoot several scenes at single location, and in order to do this, several scripts have to be ready." - here, you sound like you're a part of the production team. Careful of that tone.
• "he realized how big the original cast hit with audiences" - this is a little informal.
• "When it comes to guest stars, "we need to...'" - tone, again.
• Do a ctrl+F and search for 9th Wonders, because you haven't italicised it every time.
• "Tim Kring has stated in an interview that the cockroach represents survival" - I don't know why Tim Kring is suddenly wikilinked here.
• "On (December 14), the..." - what's going on here?
• "severely mangled her hand" - you can do better than "mangled".
• Italicise the 360 experience throughout.
• You need to format all of your references using citeweb, instead of just bare URLs.

Hope all this helps. Good luck! Seegoon (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts from User:Toddst1

• The infobox has a field for "Starring" followed by 18 people. Clearly, the word "star" is not appropriate. Perhaps it should read "Cast". comment by Toddst1 (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• The Promotions fandom and pop culture section should drop "pop culture" from its title. That's just inviting the de-evolution of the section into a trivia farm (it's not that way now). FWIW, I think all "in pop culture" sections should be removed, as most references are in passing, rather than having significant impact on pop-culture. comment by Toddst1 (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overall, excellent article. Final comment by Toddst1 (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts from User:Dposse

moved from main heroes talkpage

• Why is the infobox yellow? Wasn't it purple a few months ago?
• Why is the article all jumbled? Why did someone decide to put production at the top when it was originally closer to the bottom? Now you have DVD releases and Heroes: Origins infomation BEFORE infomation about the plot for the first two seasons, and the characters. Seems kinda backwards, huh? I find this much harder to read and understand then what it was a month or so ago.
• Mythology of Heroes seems like an article that would be great on the heroeswiki, but is a completely unwikipedian page. We should delete it and condense the relevant infomation into the main article. dposse (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: the order - I agree. We need to know what the show is about before we learn how it is made. While I think the entire structure could probably be tweaked, I've just moved "Plot" and "Characters" up to #1 and #2 for now. This way, we learn a) what the show is about; b) who the main players are; and then c) how and why it is that way. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually for once I agree with you Ckatz. I never did like the order, I just never brought it up because....well I don't know why. But I don't agree that Mythology of Heroes is unwikipedian. Why delete it when so much work has been put into it. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 02:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ckatz too. Looks good. Ckatz, your arguement makes sense and I support you on this one. I also agree with wikirocks. I think we should keep mythology, but not because a lot of work went into it, but because it is well source and isnt a bunch of OR and POV. It is factual fictional elements of the series and it is well, well well sourced.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Before we all jump on the wagon, let's take a look at the format for some GA and FA articles about other shows, and note how they are structured, and follow that template. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

funny you should say that user:arcayne, because that is just what i was doing. i just looked at all the featured articles under the television wikiproject and they all vary. some have cast first, some have production first, some have characters first and some have plot synopses first...it all varies, but their is no majority or standard that all the pages follow. if we want to follow the Lost module, we can revert it back, however, if you check all all the featured article, all of them are different and are organized differently. some are like the lost model, a lot are not. like i said, some start with cast, some start with characters, some start with plot, some start with production. you can review the list yourself of featured television articles if you need to ref for yourself. Click Here to review other FA television articles--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, i had already reviewed them, Chris. I just wanted someone else to do so as well. Why we chose a particular arrangement is going to come up in FA roundtable (and we sahould be aiming for FA; otherwise, we are simply wasting our time). I think that the plot, then cast, then production seems to make the most sense. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, great!! I am glad a lot of users are on the same page about FA status. Yeah, about the same time you posted that message I was reviewing other FA articles under the Television wikiproject. So, yeah, you and ckatz make great sense about why the ordering is important, especially for a mainstream show like heroes, where a lot of new viewers are constantly being reintroduced. okay, yeah, i agree. cant wait until this article gets a FA star. we got lots of work to do to get there, but we all seem committed to the project and can do it.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts from User:AngelGraves13

1. Move everything character releated to the Characters of Heroes article and list everything about them there, nicely organized with a head shot to go with it and a list of their powers and history.

Also, I'm the one who changed the standard annoying purple color to yellow, since it's more inline with the comic book style coloring of the show.

AngelGraves13 05:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Um...you know I actually agree, in a way. I love the casting section, and the written section above the character table is great, but Heroes has such a big cast that and the characters table doesn't really blend in with the rest of the page. Bignole has done a great job with the characters/cast section on Smallville, I really must commend him. But Heroes cast is probably too big for that. I don't see a problem with just removing the whole table. And the picture of the cast is ridiculous. You can see the characters now, but the picture is too small. I understand that it is hard to find a better one, I just hope we do. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 05:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the chart is real clear and concise. I support to leave it as is. It gives a full scoope of the series. Its a serial and has a large ensemble cast...that is what the show is. so, I say leave it. BUT, i think in the infobox, the cast names should be removed and we should add a (see below) link, because there are a lot of them. i dont know what wikipolicy is on the (see below) link but i have seen it on other pages. however, that could be a WP:OTHERCRAPEXSIST. So, that my too cents. keep the cast table and change the infobox. I remember when we had the cast table as a list, it was so complicated to read. the information was cluttered and unorganized. the table is the best way to organize it, unless someone wants to do the character section in prose, and rename it a cast section and state what characters they play, (similar to the Lost cast section on the Lost mainpage)...that is just an option.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As to the size of the cast picture, I think the main reason it's small is because it's a non-free image. There is a very high-resolution version available, but for copyright/fair use reasons we are using a low-res version. For example, non-free images are encouraged to be .1 megapixel or less. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 10:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts from User:Ged UK

• I'm glad that others have agreed with my thought that the order was all wrong, it's much better now.
• The table of main cast is rather large. Perhaps the characters could be grouped by family or similar, and write a short summary. Fuller character bios would obviously be included in the main character article.
• The first statement of the criticsms section needs a cite
• I've a hatful of more minor language changes that i'll just put into the article.
• The info on the DVD release order is duplicated in the table, so can be removed. Ged UK (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

greetings. No one necessarily agreed with you that the order was wrong, because several featured television articles were formatted the way it used to be. However, there was a small concensus which supported the change...but both formats were fine. But yes, it did get changed. I do not agree with the character chart being organized by family or similar, as that has no barring on the enclopedic info in the article, however, if concensus wants to change the chart into prose or a list, i support that...but I also like the chart, mostly because we tried a list in the past and it was too complicated and disorganized because of the amount of information. prose may also work, if we focus on the cast and what characters they portray, similar to Lost article. However, I still support the chart because it is the most clear and easily read format of the characters and cast, and there starring and recurring seasons. ALso, I didnt not see much duplicate infomration in the chart and the prose info on the dvd, however, it could use some clean up, so I agree with you on that. Also, I think you meant the first sentence in concept needed a source, because you placed a citation tag. it was sourced. everything in the first para of concept is from the same source.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. WHat i meant regarding the DVD section is that it says "It was later released in Australia, New Zealand, France, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Malaysia, UK, Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Brazil and Poland respectively." which is all then repeated in the table. Ged UK (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, i don't dislike the cast table, and i understand totally how hard it is to get all the info on there, it just that it's so big. I don't think it hugely detracts from the article though. Ged UK (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the character/cast chart is big, but the cast is sooo big, I cant really think of another option. when we had a list, it was horribly unorganized. Like i said before, prose or a chart would be the only way. Also, I agree with you about the DVD sect, it does need some clean up.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure "horribly unorganized" is the right description for the previous version... if we look at the current version and the last version prior to conversion, there's not much difference. The text is essentially the same, the information is the same, and it is even in approximately the same order. The only significant difference is the table. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree and disagree Ckatz. While you are right about the former version being similar, I still think the information is presented clearer on a chart. do you agree to that? Yeah, the chart takes up a lot of space, but I dont think the list is a good idea. I would support prose or a chart, but not a list. The list seemed a little bit bulky in information, and not clearly presented...but like i said, i support prose or a chart. but ckatz, i still agree with you halfway on this. Maybe we need to come up with a concensus on the chart, list or prose. should we take this discussion out of the peer review section and into the main page talkpage?--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this discussion should be taken to the talk page. I support list or prose. The chart is a nice way to organise information, but it doesn't look as nice. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey peeps! I have moved the discussion about the character/cast chart to the main talkpage on the main heroes page. Please submit or resubmit your views over on that talkpage.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts from user Benjiboi

• Table of characters has columns for "Star billing seasons" and "Recurring billing seasons" these seem confusing and rather useless, just saying.
• Article is way huge, perhaps spinoff most cast/casting content to its own or otherwise split article. Benjiboi 05:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts from User:The no erz

• Synopses: I like them the way they are, but I don't see any harm in seperating them by volume instead of season, kind of like it's done in List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes
• Cast and Casting: The chart's not working, it's not going to work (I tried replacing it and the very next edit to the page was a revert, so...) and I don't think a list is either. Therefore, I support prose. Also, the casting section is excellent, but the picture just isn't working and a new one should probably be just placed in the character section
• Production: I mostly took care of the production notes section by adding the information on writing to the episode format. Also in production notes, I think the artwork info can be added to Artwork of Isaac Mendez. New sections for filming (because that's a biggie) and visual effects (especially for this show) should also be created, I think. Also, if there are any issues we have with the specific musical cues for the characters, I think they should be added to the characters' pages because I hope we can all agree they ALL need more out-of-universe info. And finally, for my own personal comprehension, can someone please explain to me how DVD releases and Heroes: Origins are part of production?
• Other: The Impact and Mythology sections are great. However, I think some of the Multimedia sub-sections should be merged. And lastly, the citations... we all know about those, though. I can do some work on those, but please leave DETAILED edit summaries, everyone, so that those of us who will fix them have an easier time sorting through the article's edit history

Hope this helped, The no erz (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts from User:Parent5446

I know somebody already generated an automatic peer review, but here is an updated one: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 16:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Lead

1. ...as well as storytelling, using short, multi-episode story arcs that build upon a larger, more encompassing arc. According to Kring, he and the writers "have talked about where the show goes up to five seasons.: Both of these sentences get a little confusing. The end of the first one mentioned takes a couple of seconds to comprehend. It needs to be re-written in a different way or maybe even separated into a separate sentence. As for the second sentence mentioned, the sentence is okay until the direct quote comes in and the sentence gets a little wordy. It is understandable, but it would still be better if the direct quote was instead paraphrased so the sentence made mor sense.

• Synopses

1. The series has large, overall plot arcs and minor story arcs within.: This is only minor. The comma confuses the reader with relation to the structure of the sentence. In addition, it is not good in formal writing to end a sentence with a preposition.
2. No matter what characters exist and what events make up a season, each season of Heroes is planned to involve ordinary people who discover their abilities and their reactions to that discovery.: This sentence is a little confusing. At first reading, it seems to have no relation to the previous sentence and it seems as if the sentence is separated into two different topics, the second of which has not yet been introduced to the reader in that paragraph. Consider just removing the first clause of the sentence.
3. Season 2 was going to comprise three volumes. Volume 2 was "Generations", Volume 3 was called "Exodus", and Volume 4 was called "Villains." This plan changed due to the writers strike.: This paragraph is not only confusing but is completely random with relation to the rest of the section. Consider moving the paragraph to the Season two section below it.

• Season one

1. The characters' individual stories, Peter Petrelli's abilities, his brother Nathan's campaign for Congress, Claire Bennet's search for her biological parents, Hiro Nakamura's adventurous journeys, Niki Sanders' multiple personalities, and the precognitive visions of Isaac Mendez all culminate in a climactic meeting of the characters at Kirby Plaza in New York.: The problem with this sentence is self-explanatory. It is way to long to be one sentence. It is good that the paragraph is describing how all seven elements come together somewhere in the season, but it is way too long for the reader to stay focused.

• Season two (Includes Volume two: "Generations" and Volume three: "Villians")

1. It aired on Mondays at 9:00pm.: Pronoun antecedent problem. No mention has yet been made about the individual episodes of season two so the pronoun "it" seems to be referring to the season itself and that the season aired on Monday at 9:00pm. This should be changed.
2. The season was broken down into volumes, and the first volume completed its finale on December 3, 2007, followed by a hiatus until the end of the writers' strike.: This sentence should occupy its own introductory section to the Season two section. General info about the season should not be in a separate Volume 2 section. In addition, if Volume one is mentioned, where it its section. I think that it would be better if the whole section was not separated by volume as it is now.
3. These include Nathan Petrelli's recovery following the events at Kirby Plaza; the journey of new characters Maya and Alejandro from Honduras to the United States, and their interaction with a powerless Sylar; Claire and Noah Bennet and their family adapting to a new life in southern California; Claire's relationship with her boyfriend West; Monica Dawson discovering her powers in New Orleans, with the help of her cousin Micah; Matt Parkman's reunion with his estranged father, leading to discovery of new abilities; The Company's manipulation of Mohinder Suresh; Ando Masahashi trying to piece together what happened to Hiro; and Hiro Nakamura's journey to Feudal Japan, where he meets his childhood hero, Takezo Kensei.: Believe it or not, this is one sentence. This sentence, not only is it long, but it overuses the semicolon. The semicolon is made to show closely related topics and clauses. As far as I see it, none of the mentioned secondary plots are related to each other. The only relation each secondary plot has is to the beginning of the sentence. Therefore, each secondary plot, or least one or two closely related secondary plots, should be separated into their own sentences.

• Cast and characters

1. Although NBC's cast page lists only ten characters,[16] Leonard Roberts (D.L. Hawkins), who first appeared in the series' fifth episode, was an additional member of the original full-time cast.: Consider finding a valid source to prove this.
2. The Character Chart: Consider turning this into prose. For example, see Avatar: The Last Airbender#Main Characters

• Casting

1. The Picture: If possible, consider making the picture slightly larger, as it is barely noticeable. In fact, the caption is bigger than the picture itself.
2. Tim Kring describes the casting process as an "incredibly simple and easy process.": Is there a source for this direct quote?
3. ...when casting for a new character for the show, major or minor, his company puts out a script breakdown.: You might want to consider expanding on what a script breakdown is inside the sentence (not in a separate sentence), just for the reason that is seems as if the sentence ends prematurely.
4. When it comes to guest stars, Padura states, "we need to really be able to see what the people have done, what they're about, we pay a lot of attention to people's training, their previous credits.": Is there a source for this direct quote?
5. ...responded by asking his to tone down the impression...: The his probably should be him.
6. According to La Padura Milo Ventimiglia's role as Peter was the last to be cast and the most difficult.: The sentence does not make much sense. A commar should be added between La Padura and Milo.

• Production

• Conception

1. ...he described the network's reaction as "excited...very supportive.": Is there a source for this direct quote?

• Writing and episode format

1. Everything seems to be fine in this section.

• Music and soundtrack

1. Kring wanted incredibly unusual musically and gave Wendy and Lisa a lot of freedom and permission to experiment.": First, the word musically makes no sense. It should be changed to just music. In addition, there is a stray quotation mark at the end of the sentence.
2. In the pilot episode, Kring suggested that a dreamy cue be used in a scene which Claire Bennet running into a burning train.: the second clause that begins with "which" makes no sense. This is because which is used as a preposition. Since the clause following it is a separate sentence with a separate verb phrase, the second clause should either be separated into a separate sentence or the preposition "which" should be changed to an appropriate conjunction. Yet another alternative is to use a semicolon.

• DVD releases

1. This section seems to be OK.

• Heroes: Origins

1. This section seems OK but I suggest that since the only article that the separate Heroes: Origins article has relation to is this one, that the Heroes: Origins article be merged into this article.

• Production notes

1. Most of the info in this section is not necessary. It should be removed. However, if you feel otherwise, it should at least be merged into another section, as it is just lengthening the ToC (see automated peer review).

• Mythology

1. ...Kring said "we have talked about where the show goes up to five seasons.": The direct quote makes more sense here than it did in previous sections. However, it is missing a comma between said and we.
2. Among the show's mythological elements is The Company, a covert international organization who tracks and abducts humans with special abilities; the legend of Takezo Kensei; paintings of the future; 9th Wonders! comic book series and the mystery of Uluru; superpowers and their origins; Activating Evolution, a fictional book and sometimes guide for evolved humans; the Shanti virus; and numerous other elements and mythological themes.: This is yet another sentence that overuses the semicolon and is completely confusing and too long. Please see the previously used advice as I do not need to retype the same solution over.

• Recurring elements

1. Everything in this section seems to be OK. However, I think that the eclipse and cockroach symbol deserve their own paragraph, since the helix got its own paragraph.

This concludes Part 3 of my review. This is starting to seem like a copy edit, but I do not think this review is comprehensive enough to qualify. Hope you like my advice. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 17:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC) I hope you do not mind, but I have added a merger proposal for the Heroes:Origin article that you have suggested for merger above--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to finish the review later. Maybe tomorrow. Hope the advice is good so far. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 23:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts from User:88wolfmaster

• Nice to see an article cited pretty throughly
• Synopses might be better organized by just Volume (and not by season then volume)
• The characters table bothers me I have created two different versions as suggestions to work off of (a prose version and a new table). You can find it here on my sandbox.
• The cast and characters section could use some trimming