This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because:
This article has been a GA for some time and needs to progress to FA.
There is also a dispute between the two most-contributory editors to the article (one much more so than the other, but that shouldn't be a major factor) on the overall shape and flow of the article. The original GA form of the article had bibliographic and filmographic details interspersed throughout the prose. This was changed into a version with separate filmography and bibliography sections, with the material in the main prose considerably summarized. An even more summarized variant with these sections also has been produced, but the article is presently back to an integrated version with no film/biblio sections (and considerably more material than the original). A fifth option (no diff to show) would be to keep most of the material in the prose, but pared down, and have very summary bullet-pointed bibliography and filmography sections (this would permit moving minor details about these things to those sections, and even removing questionably notable talk shows and stuff from the main prose and only mentioning them in those sections). Note: A great number of minor improvement edits are not accounted for in the above edit history links; they are provided just as an easy way to get to the four versions for structural comparison purposes. I.e. the fact that the later versions are better than the earlier ones in several unrelated respects shouldn't affect what article structure to use.
One of the two major contributors also feels that the lead is overly long (as was noted in the original pre-GA peer review, when the lead was even longer) and not focused enough on what makes Wanderone notable, while the other major editor disagrees.
Input from editors experienced at peer review and FA work, and not involved in the editing of the article, would probably be quite valuable here.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)