Wikipedia:Peer review/Vertigo (film)/archive1

Vertigo (film)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I mainly want to see what I can do for it in order to reach it up to Good Article status. I've recently been adding/improving references and adding bits of information here and there in order to reach it up to B class from Start class. Thank you!

Thanks, I'^mperator 14:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This website may be useful for research. I'll let Brian share his review before I take a close look so there are no redundancies. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: (Thanks, Erik, for the additional information)

As the nominator's aim is to get this to Good Article standard, I looked at some of the many existing GA film articles. My view is that at present this article requires much work before it can realistically aspire to the standard of the existing film GAs. Here are points which need attention:-

Images: What is the basis for the assumption that Vertigo is out of copyright? The image licensing is wierd – in each case one licence says they are out of copyright, another gives consent to use by the copyright holder. I have not seen this form of licencing in any of the firm articles I've looked at. I think an acknowledged WP image expert ought to take a look.
Lead: on the short side, and with some prose errors, e.g. "starring" and "costars" in the same sentence, doubtful use of "whom", and "is not who she claimed to be" (tenses conflict).
Plot: at almost 1,000 words this is decidely on the long side for film articles – most at GA are no more than 700 to 800 words. There is some loose writing, e.g. phrases like "much later" (how long is "much"?), and the summary is quite confusing at times. Here is a passage I found hard to untangle: "Judy writes him a letter in which she admits (in voice-over) that she was in fact the woman that he knew as "Madeleine," but was not the real woman herself. Elster bribed her to act as mentally unstable when in fact the real "Madeleine" fell from the tower and was already dead when she was thrown from the tower by her husband. Elster had hired Scottie to follow the false Madeleine simply in order to have someone reputable to corroborate his claims of his wife's suicidal tendencies." There are other passages I found similarly opaque. This section needs considerable editing, including excision of small detail and a clearer exposition of what is, I admit, a convoluted plot.
The article does not have a cast list, which seems to be a feature of nearly all film GAs.
Likewise, there is no analysis section, which is apparently an essential feature of all film articles
Both the Restoration and the Locations sections are overdetailed, the latter especially so, with its lengthy bullet-point list. These sections should be substantially cut down, to restore some balance to the article.
The Popular culture section is essentially a list of trivial facts associated, often tangentially, with the film. Wikipedia does not generally approve of trivia lists, even if called something else. Few if any of these facts give any greater understanding of the film, and I would suggest it should be ditched altogether.
References: I would suggest that you list a bibliography, instead of incorporating it in the references list. The general format of book citations should be e.g. "Aulier, p. 30". Can you also explain ref [22], which cites something to "Katz"?
Prose generally: I've mentioned a few problems, but I feel that the prose generally needs some attention. The first line of the plot section is incomprehensible as it stands. Perhaps a fresh pair of eyes should look at it.

I hope these criticisms will not discourage you from working on the article to bring it up to standard. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiGuy86 comments:

Infobox needs a little work. For example, I personally use a reference anytime I list a film's budget.
Lead section could be a bit stronger. Since it's the first thing people see when they come to the page, it should really be a summation of the work throughout. (Production, Original box office performance, restoration, etc.)
Excessive number of images on page. They seem to be planted all over the page, yet none are production stills, so there isn't really much use for so many.
Plot needs a little work. It could stand to be tightened and shortened.
As well-known and influential as the musical score is, its section definitely needs to be improved upon.
The American Film Institute bullet points should be written into sentences in the Re-evaluation section. I don't think Wikipedia encourages anything being listed on pages, so it'd be hard to get a GA evaluation with any material written in that style.
All bullet points in Filming locations section need to be written in paragraph form.
The In popular culture section should probably be turned into a Cultural influence section. I suggest organizing all listed works in chronological order, then re-writing in paragraph form, and finding references for each work.

Hope this helps. I've actually been meaning to work on some of Hitchcock's film pages as well, and I've been telling myself I'm going to try and get the North by Northwest page to GA/FA by the end of the year. You get so sidetracked on Wikipedia, though! WikiGuy86 (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]