Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Peer review/2007

This WikiProject Film page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest.

List of films that received the Golden Film[edit]

I would like to use this peer review to find out what needs to be done to make the list of featured list quality. – Ilse @ 13:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review[edit]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 02:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following the automated peer review, I would like to ask the League of Copyeditors to check the introduction to the list. I will do this later on, and wait for other comments first. – Ilse @ 07:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Girolamo Savonarola[edit]

All in all, it looks excellent and well sourced. However, my personal recommendation would be to consolidate this with the Platinum and Diamond lists - it wouldn't take much more work, since there aren't too many to date, and would allow the list to be fully comprehensive on the topic of Dutch ticket sales. Maybe the table could be extended to allow for rows for the dates of Platinum and Diamond achievement? Good work so far, though! Girolamo Savonarola 23:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I have some questions, because I don't have a clear picture of what you meant with your recommendation.

This list was split off from the article Golden Film after subsequent requests during its featured article candidacy, because readers thought the article was too "listy". This list wasn't intended to give a comprehensive overview of Dutch tickets sales. The article section Cinema of the Netherlands#Box office should give this overview, including the four different box office awards in the Netherlands. Do you now recommend to change List of films that received the Golden Film into List of films that received a Dutch box office award?

In that case, I believe that films that received the three other box office awards, Crystal Film, Platinum Film, and Diamond Film, should be added. Some people think the films that only sold 100,000 tickets (Golden Film) are not yet successful, but films that sold over 400,000 tickets (Platinum Film) are successful.^[1] Also, the Crystal Film (for 10,000 tickets sold of Dutch documentary films only) is quite different from the Diamond Film (for 1 million tickets sold of any Dutch film). When the different lists are merged, this should not merely create a receptacle of lists instead of a more comprehensive list. How can this be avoided? – Ilse @ 08:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that it would make more sense to integrate the lists together - is there a specific problem were you to redefine the list into List of films receiving a Dutch box office award? Or something similar? You could always create a separate table for documentaries, which could include columns for Crystal and the other levels (if they've ever been reached by Crystal winners). Girolamo Savonarola 16:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather simple to add the other awards to the current list, but I don't see how the proposed list is an improvement. I think the proposed list will loose transparency compared to the current one. If the purpose of the proposed list is to give an overview of Dutch box office results, I think a new list should be created, in which films are ordered by the number of tickets they've sold. – Ilse @ 20:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob-B-Hood[edit]

Over the last couple of weeks, I've worked substantially on this article, adding a section detailing its production, a cast list, a detailed plot, the release information and the reception. My goal is that the article be eventually featured one day, so I'd like as much constructive feedback as possible to improve it. Thanks.--Alasdair 06:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review by Wisekwai[edit]

Casting[edit]

Second paragraph: "Koo was the baby's favourite on set, and, whenever the baby cried, Koo was always the first to cheer him up.

Filming[edit]

Second paragraph: " ...even though a second unit was used." Unnecessary detail. The film went over budget. Period.
Third paragraph: Pipelink quad bike.

Images[edit]

Crop the black letterboxing bars off the screenshots, and if possible, brighten them slightly. If you need assistance, let me know.

Cast[edit]

Who portrays Max? He's a small role I realize, but he's important in the beginning.
Melody, a student nurse

Plot[edit]

Second paragraph: A few months later, the Landlord loses his life savings following a burglary of his flat.

Releases[edit]

Template:Infobox movie certificates will help encapsulate the ratings information and help expand upon other country releases. The Japan image could be swapped left or moved to reception, or the ratings box could be placed in reception.
Any details on the DVD release for regions 1 and 2?

Reception[edit]

How about some exact quotes from the critics? A search on MRQE might turn up some unique reviews that you can use.

External links[edit]

It's okay to include links to IMDb and the official site, even though they are summarized in the infobox. Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, MRQE and All Movie Guide could be included if the pages have anything meaningful.

Overall[edit]

An entertaining and informative read. I had watched a good portion of the movie on Thai-dubbed VCD while waiting for free gift wrapping at a department store. So this article helped fill in the blanks. — WiseKwai 07:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review by Epbr123[edit]

Prose[edit]

"It is the first film in which Jackie Chan plays a villain, a burglar with gambling problems." - reads as though this is the first film he plays a burglar with gambling problems.
"Golden Harvest's departure from the film industry" - reads as though Golden Harvest left the film industry to work in another industry.
"Warriors of Heaven and Earth and The Banquet and Kekexili: Mountain Patrol." - too many ands.
"Chan has starred in over 50 action films throughout his acting career" - throughout his acting career is redundant.
"stars of New Police Story make cameo apperances" - comma needed after Story.
"littering by crew members in the premises, volunteering to take out the rubbish" - the comma should be replaced by and.
"feeling slightly inconfident" - unconfident.
"someone who would tempt others to do bad things" - change tempt to persuade.
"has co-starred with Chan and Sammo Hung in a number of action comedy films" - remove has.
"reunion of the "Three Brothers". However, the latter declined." - replace the full-stop after Brothers with a comma.
"Police Inspector Mok, a policeman assigned to investigate" - a policeman is redundant.
"and even a decomissioned prison." - the even is unencyclopedic
"his crew had planned a surprise birthday party for several days" - reads as though the party lasted several days.
"During his dinner break, the entire production staff, including board members of the production company, arrived taking pictures with Jackie Chan while actor Terence Yin presented him with two birthday cakes and a roast suckling pig." - sentence should be rearranged to reduce the number of commas. Also, reads as though Jackie Chan was taking pictures.
"fans attended Jackie Chan's birthday party" - remove birthday so we know you're talking about the same party.
"Chan acted as the stunt director of Rob-B-Hood" - replace the word acted.
"performing his own stunts in the film, jumping from air-conditioner" - reads as though this was the only stunt he performed.
"blowing cold air at them through a large fan" - change through to with.
"in a hospital: A burglary committed" - the A shouldn't be capitalised.
It should be mentioned earlier in the plot section why the triads want the baby.
"the three see the nurses taking a blood sample from the baby. Thongs and Octopus experience a flashback" - did the nurses taking a blood sample cause them to have the flashbacks?
"comes in two discs: A movie disc" - the A shouldn't be capitalised.
"Benny Chan explains including too many" - add the word that after explains.
"exceeding ¥90 million.[5]Rob-B-Hood performed well" - add a space after the ref.

Style[edit]

Full dates and dates with a day and a month should be linked. The same applies to dates in the footnotes.
" - a criminal and compuslive gambler" - en dash needed.
"to play a heavy - a nasty" - en dash needed. Epbr123 09:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goldfinger (film)[edit]

Condsidered by critics and fanatics alike to be one of the best, if not the best, Bond film of all time, this article was recently promoted to GA-status after work by WikiProject James Bond as its Collaboration of the Fortnight. All comments, suggestions, etc. are invited and welcomed. Cliff smith 19:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Awadewit[edit]

The biggest problem with the article is that it is not comprehensive (even in the GA sense). It does not address the themes of the film or the artistry of the film (apart from sound). Moreover, the article does not represent the published work on this film. In fact, it does not use any film scholarship at all. In a quick google scholar search, I found these works that would help the editors begin writing "Themes" and "Cinematic style" sections. These sources' bibliographies should also lead them to even more sources.

The lead should be a standalone summary of the article per WP:LEAD (please read carefully). The initial level of detail, I feel, is too high and loses the non-aficianado. A better job could be done alluding to the article's sections as well.
The "Plot" section is much too long. Summarize more!
The article is arranged, in my opinion, illogically. Shouldn't the plot summary come first in the article? It is odd to have "Production" - "Plot" - "Casting". Isn't "Casting" a part of production? Also, shouldn't the "Soundtrack" come somewhere before the "Reception"?
- Done I have done some in-merging. Nothing else will do. Vikrant Phadkay 15:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Must we have a cast list so prominently displayed in the middle of the article? Could it be moved to the end - there is really very little information there.
The "Reception" section does not address the critical reception of the film at the time. What did film critics in newspapers say about it? How was it reviewed? Also, why do we care what the AFI ranked it? Explain to the reader the importance of these numbers or delete them.
The article should be copy edited - there is a lot of repetitious diction and syntax.

With a lot of work put in by a few editors over the next few months, this article can be improved dramatically. Awadewit | talk 10:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Platoon (film)[edit]

This article is a real mess and needs major work but I would certainly be willing to work with someone to clean it up and make it worthy of GA status. Any comments, suggestions, etc. would be very helpful. Thanks. --J.D. 20:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belovedfreak[edit]

The lead needs expanding per WP:LEAD.
Plot needs cutting down considerably, it's far too long at the moment.
The section on production could do with expanding if possible, and needs citations.
All the "citation needed" tags need to be addressed.
The reception section could maybe be expanded with more about what film critics thought. I would also consider turning the awards section into prose.
There needs to be a list of references / footnotes at the end of the article.

--Beloved freak 13:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rumble Fish[edit]

This is a very underrated film in Francis Ford Coppola's career. I've cleaned up this article considerably and would like any suggestions, comments, etc. that would help raise to GA status. --J.D. 20:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belovedfreak[edit]

Good work so far, but some things I have noticed:

It shouldn't really be necessary to have a US flag in the infobox next to Country, because you have the name of the country. You could, though, use a flag next to the release date, instead of (USA).
I could be wrong, but I don't think you should need references in the lead section. The lead is just a summary of the rest of the article, so anything mentioned in the lead should be expanded, and cited, further down.
In the lead, 1940's should be 1940s.
The 1st sentence of the plot, "Set in an unnamed industrial town (Tulsa, Oklahoma, in Hinton's bookS.E. Hinton)..." doesn't make sense.
The plot section is far too long. According to the Manual of style, it should be between 400 and 700 words long.
It needs more categories, for example Country, language, genre.
Could maybe do with a copyedit for some of the language. Eg.
- "Suddenly, the Motorcycle Boy (Mickey Rourke) arrives and is quietly displeased with the renewed violence he worked to end"
- "It is during conversation between Steve and an injured Rusty James that we learn how the Motorcycle Boy has been gone for two months, is 21 years old, colorblind, partially deaf, and noticeably aloof - the last trait causing many to claim he's got loose screws in the head"
- "He fools around with another girl and is dumped by Patty, who quickly (too quickly) found out about his tryst."
The movie poster needs a fair use rationale.
The article switches between "the movie" and "the film". Might not matter, but personally I would just stick to one.

Hope this helps --Beloved freak 15:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield Earth (film)[edit]

Mangojuice (talk · contribs) passed this article into Wikipedia:Good articles, on 19 April 2007. Would be interested in hearing from the community, some pointers and steps to improve this article's quality to Wikipedia:Featured articles. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 03:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Moved by Lenin & McCarthy on 13th July. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:
- The lead section seems too short. Perhaps a paragraph could be added to summarize the Development section?
- I don't see a lot of discussion of the special effects. Some reviewers had at least a modicum of praise for a few of the effects. Perhaps the article could expand on this, and also cover why most of the effects were bad.
- It could mention any Scientology influence on the plot, or lack thereof.
- "Scientology factor" should be explained for those readers who may unfamiliar with the cult.
That's all I've got. =) — RJH (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for providing your feedback here. Smee 04:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Transformers (film)[edit]

It's awesome that this article is GA before it's even out in the UK and I can see it. Any suggestions for this recent film? Copyedits? Clarifications? Alientraveller 20:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by LordHarris[edit]

Good work and ive got just a few points. Firstly in the lead, Cullen voiced Optimus in the 1980s cartoon, and returned by fan demand. I think this needs a reference to support. I assume its: Todd Gilchrist. "Exclusive: Peter Cullen Interview", IGN, 2007-06-08, the same reference for him slipping on an old pair of shoes but I think you should cite the fan demand.
The following sentance seems a bit disjointed: To save money, Michael Bay cut his fee by 30%, chose to shoot in the United States with a crew he was familiar with,[46] doing more camera set-ups per day than usual[3] for an eighty-three day shooting schedule.[32] Couldnt this be two sentances? Starting a new sentance after the 46 reference. So for example To save money, Michael Bay cut his fee by 30% and chose to shoot in the United States with a crew he was familiar with. During the shoot he did more camera set-ups per day, than usual[3], for an eighty-three day shooting schedule.[32]
Again with the following sentance: He practically made the film in computer animatics as a close guide for the five editors during the speedy shoot What do you mean by practically, either he made all of it or part of it? LordHarris 12:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last two points are fixed. Alientraveller 20:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Erik[edit]

The content looks great to me. I spy mostly copy-editing issues that need to be fixed.

"Transformers is a 2007 live action film based on the Transformers franchise, directed by Michael Bay and executive produced by Steven Spielberg." Re-word so it doesn't sound like that Bay and Spielberg weren't responsible for the franchise, but for the film.
"It stars Shia LaBeouf as Sam Witwicky..." The film or the franchise? (Probably both, but in this case, "film" should be mentioned.)
"...map to the Allspark, the center of the war between the heroic Autobots and the evil Decepticons." This makes Allspark sound like a place where the war takes place. Can some more detail be provided to indicate that it's an object?
"Though not a fan, Bay was convinced by Spielberg to direct..." Specify what Bay wasn't a fan of, even though it may seem obvious to us. It may not be familiar to new readers.
"Bay had support from General Motors and the United States military during filming, keeping the budget under $150 million." Re-word to have an action verb, such as, "General Motors and the United States military lent their support to Bay during filming..." (The action verb would be lent; it's a technique of writing to keep the reader engaged.)
Under Cast's Shia entry: "...maturing into a soldier." Is this really accurate wording? It could be interpreted as literal, which wasn't the case.
"...and has a criminal record as she refused to turn him to the authorities." Put "she" in between "and has", and write "him" as "her father" to make sure "him" is not confused with Sam.
"Simmons is leading a team..." rewrite as "Simmons leads a team..." for consistency's sake.
"Both she and her husband act as comic relief." This seems unnecessary, considering that a lot of characters were goofy, like Simmons.

I'll need to stop here 'cause I need to go somewhere, but I hope you can get an idea of what similar changes can be made to the article based on my suggestions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, done, but I felt the Mikaela description was ok. Alientraveller 20:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More observations:

"TV series voice actor Frank Welker auditioned, but was rejected as..." -- rewrite as, "TV series voice actor Frank Welker had auditioned, but he was rejected because..."
"Welker voiced Megatron..." → "Instead, Welker voiced Megatron..."
"In 2002, Hasbro began developing its properties..." Rewrite to briefly mention that Hasbro is a toy company, as not everyone will know of its background.
"...when the U.S. invaded Iraq..." How about mentioning the year of the invasion for the sake of long-term chronology, to compare to the film's production?
"Tom DeSanto joined the project as..." Replace as with because.
Is Generation 1 supposed to be in italics? The article doesn't seem to indicate that, but it's italicized here.
"...deciding to focus on the Creation Matrix." In what way? For the premise of the film?
"DeSanto chose a human point-of-view in his treatment to engage the audience,[24] in various storylines resembling a disaster film, as Murphy wanted it to feel realistic.[7]" This is kind of choppy. How about something like, "DeSanto chose a human point-of-view in his treatment to engage the audience.[24] Various storylines were included to resemble a disaster film because Murphy wanted the film to feel realistic.[7]"
"After they were rejected..." → "After the producers were rejected..." (Since we started a new paragraph, the subject should be re-identified.)
"DeSanto met with Mike DeLuca" → "DeSanto met with producer Mike DeLuca" -- identify new figures briefly if possible to an unfamiliar reader. Spielberg should be fine, though, as he has a lot of positions and his direct role is identified as an executive producer in the next sentence.
"...had the Ark spaceship." Replace had with an action verb, such as included or featured.
"Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman" → "Screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman"
"...were hired in February to start over." Write to be more clear, such as to start a new script.
"Spielberg pitched it to them as about 'a boy and his car'..." → "Spielberg suggested to the writers an approach about 'a boy and his car'..." Just to clarify the "it" and "them"
"Optimus Prime, Megatron, Bumblebee and Starscream were included in all their scripts,[29] but Sam and Mikaela were the focus of the first draft,[33] and the Transformers had no dialogue." This is a run-on sentence, there's two separations -- "and" and "but". Try to break it down into several sentences.
"...the writers felt that even if it could look ridiculous..." → "the writers felt that even if the Transformers speaking could look ridiculous..." Identify the "it" since it's a bit far from the "dialogue" mention now.
"...made him curious, and visiting Hasbro made him gain a new respect..." → "...made Bay curious, and upon visiting Hasbro, the director gained a new respect..." Just more subject identification.
"Bay also wanted it to feel..." → "Bay also wanted the film to feel..."
"...naturally, and make..." Remove the comma.
"Orci cut the Ark..." → "Orci removed the Ark from the script..."
"...to travel',[37] and Arcee..." End sentence after "travel", start new with Arcee. Also suggest identifying Arcee, like "The female Transformer Arcee..."
"...with the soldiers based on G.I. Joe." → "based the soldiers on G.I. Joe." (action verb)
"...the Autobot Prowl..." Maybe a brief identification of Prowl, such as "...the law enforcement-based Autobot Prowl..."?
"Designs began in June 2005..." What designs? Mention that it's of the Transformers, since a lot of components can be designed in a film -- storyboards, costume, et cetera.
"...three-dimensional,[35] as well as reflect their alien origins." → "three-dimensional[35] and to reflect their alien origins."
"...stays the same size, which explains their choice..." Write stayed and explained, since we're writing from out-of-universe here.
"...truck form was rejected as it would..." → "...truck form was rejected because it would..."
"Don Murphy wanted to retain Bumblebee's Volkswagen Beetle form,[44] but Bay rejected it to avoid comparisons with Herbie the Love Bug,[45] and chose the Chevrolet Camaro instead, which he described as having a friendly quality.[6]" Another run-on sentence with "but" and "and". Try to break into two sentences.
"Bumblebee is a 1977 Yellow Chevy Camaro..." Should be past tense since it's OOU, and say "was based on", perhaps.
You mention "morphing" twice in Design, I noticed, and you might want to briefly explain that to readers unfamiliar with how Transformers morphed in the cartoons.
"The official names were confirmed in August 2006,[40] although Bay himself was not fully aware of these official names,[46] and this led to Brawl being referred to as Devastator, his on-set name.[49]" While this isn't a run-on sentence, it's a bit long and could be broken into two.
"During post-production, fans expressed concern over Megatron's head design, so a last-minute tweak was done to satisfy them." Can it be specified what the issue with the head design was, and how it was fixed?
"...cut his fee by 30%" How about directing salary?
"...with a crew he was familiar with..." Redundant "with". Try, "...with a familiar crew..."
"...at that time." → "...at the time."
"Such co-operation..." → "The cooperation..." (Is co-operation UK spelling? It's cooperation in the US.)
"A pre-shoot took place on April 19, 2006, before principal photography began on April 22..." → "A pre-shoot took place on April 19, 2006, and principal photography began on April 22..." Using "before" seems unnecessary, it's a pre-shoot.
"...making them the first film crew to shoot there since 9/11." → "...making the film crew the first to shoot there since 9/11." Just shuffle the words to avoid "them" before you actually identify who.
"...it finally finished..." → "...it concluded..." Using "finally" makes it sound like they had issues staying on schedule or something.
"...with Michael Bay and Steven Spielberg conceived..." → "...and Michael Bay and Steven Spielberg provided..."
"Three versions of each car were created by General Motors..." Just to clarify, are we talking about all the Transformers vehicles, all the Autobot vehicles, or all the Autobot vehicles classified as a car? It hasn't been said in the article what cars GM provided besides the Pontiac Solistice (The Cast section doesn't really mention which ones are from GM, either).

Man, I'm gonna take a break now... haha. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last step is beyond me, I'll let you edit that. So there's a lot of shuffling due to this copyedit, especially since citations don't tell me the whole story. But that's what the DVD's for I guess. Alientraveller 20:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Searchers (film)[edit]

I am nominating this for Stillstudying, who is interested in improving this film article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In line with suggestions from Erik, and in reading the guidelines, I believe a "Critical Interpretations" section would be very helpful for readers who are not familiar with the more controversial themes in The Searchers. I would appreciate imput from editors more experienced than myself, and would welcome everyone's thoughts before I attempt myself to add such a section. My long-term goal is to raise this article to be a GA at least. The movie is truly a great one, one of the all-time classics, and warrants a better article. I also thank Erik for his help (as I did not know how to post this!) Stillstudying 13:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Erik[edit]

The first issue for this article are the use of non-free images. Images, especially the non-free kind, need to be more than decoration for the article. Considering this is a film whose themes and cinematic style has been commented on by many, it would be best to remove the seemingly decorative images and create prose to describe the themes/style. Off the top of my head, I recall that the framing of the Western background through a door from the inside was thematically significant. If prose can be provided, a shot of this cinematic style would be warranted. I would suggest checking out Wikipedia:Non-free content to understand how to implement such images.
For Themes, I would suggest using more academic resources (like the ones I listed on the article's talk page) to cover the themes of the film. The current references are rather simple reviews, and I believe that using in-depth critical interpretations from those with film studies backgrounds would be much stronger attribution.
For Cast, I would suggest using an Actor as Character format followed by a brief description of the character, as well as any information about how that particular actor was cast or how he or she portrayed his/her role. I would not be surprised if there was some controversy over the Native American casting, considering their depictions in the film.
I would suggest removing the Release section because a list of release dates is indiscriminate and does not serve much encyclopedic value. If there was a reason for the selection of dates for territories outside of the United States, then it may warrant a mention. For example, Spider-Man 3 was released in China before the United States in order to circumvent piracy.
For Reception, I would suggest starting off with a prose paragraph. Perhaps a list of recognitions would be warranted, but ideally, prose should be attempted before a list.
For Influence, there needs to be attribution about the influence of The Searchers on succeeding films. The Star Wars and Dominion mentions seem to be original research and should be backed by a secondary source.
I would suggest a Critical reaction section, both citing reviews given at the time and contemporary reviews, to reflect any change of opinion in the process.

These are my suggestions for now; there's obviously plenty to do. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to ask! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Stillstudying[edit]

I agree with all the above.

On images, we do need to use those in the public realm which have great symbolic importance. For instance, as to the image of Ethan standing in the door, offhand I cannot remember the source, (but I will find it!) but a number of critics have suggested the symbolism is that Ethan is the eternal outsider, and having returned Debbie to civilization, stands alone in the door, and walks into the wild, symbolizing that his task being done, he is not part of the civilization he ostensibly champions. Still others suggest his blatant racism and hatred for practically everyone figures in his standing in the door, and walking away, as not belonging anywhere. Obviously this is a tremendously important image, and needs more explanation for those not familiar with the movie and it's symbolism.
As to using academic sources, I would add that we have many critical reviewers who make very deep examinations of the issues Ford approached so gingerly in this movie. I agree with Erik that we need to use those, such as Brenton Priestley's explosive "Race, Racism and the Fear of Miscegenation."
We do need to completely revamp the cast section, with an explanation of what the role of each is in terms of the symbolism of the movie. For instance, several characters are simply there for comic relief. Whether that was because Ford was afraid otherwise the movie would be unbearably bleak is a subject we can discuss, citing respectable scholars.

Personally, i would prefer to have consensus before the rewrite begins. Does anyone else wish to do the rewrite? I am willing to do so, but again, would like consensus that the type of changes Erik suggests, which I agree with, are the view of the majority of editors. That way we can avoid a great many reverts! Stillstudying 14:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your plan for improvement will be much stronger than anything that has come before for this article. I would suggesting being bold in making the changes; they can only benefit the article, I'm sure. (And if anyone attempts to add a Trivia section, remove it and kindly point them at WP:AVTRIV.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erik I will give this a couple of days, and then begin being being bold in making the changes. I think your suggestions are outstanding, and I will start, (if no one else more experienced comes along and wants to do it, or has good reasons we should not), with revamping the introduction, and the cast, while similtanously removing the images that have no meaning, while replacing them with those that do, along with an explanation for why they are there. I am going to work today and tomorrow on these changes, and again, waiting for input here, will begin a wholesale revamp based on what we have discussed, late tomorrow. I really appreciate your support. I strongly feel this is a genuine classic that has been badly served by our article, and that needs to change. Stillstudying 14:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erik I would really appreciate your and Alien's input on the new section I just added. I was extremely careful - I worked a large part of the night on this! - to source everything and try to avoid anything super controversial, and stick to accepted language. I would really appreciate your evaluation on that new section and the updates on the cast, added language on the characters. If this is acceptable, I plan to work on the Production section next, and then finally delete meaningless pictures and add ones with great meaning - like him standing in the door! - with an explanation of why they are important. Your help is really appreciated! Stillstudying 12:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments by Erik[edit]

Looks like you've put some serious work into it! A few formatting notes:

For section titles, only the first letter should be capitalized, unless a later word is proper. So basically, Critical Interpretations → Critical interpretations
There should not be any spacing between a sentence's punctuation and the reference.
Try to use the Cite web, Cite news, and the Cite journal templates for your references. This provides easy, organized reading of the references.
The format of a film title in the content should just be with italics, with no quotation marks needed. So basically, "The Searchers" → The Searchers
It seems that the "Real-life inspiration" section should become part of The Searchers (novel) since the source material and its film adaptation are not always the same. What should be noted, though, is if the adaptation was faithful, or what changes John Ford made to the story. This should be done with independent, attributable sources instead of personal observations, which is original research.
The Themes section could be merged into the Critical interpretations section. Try to see if you can subsection different critical interpretations, such as Racism and Characterization. Not sure what more there are. Obviously, with so much critical coverage of this film, this shouldn't be the end of it.
For Cast, try to format it like below:

John Wayne as Ethan Edwards: A Confederate veteran of the American Civil War who comes to see his brother's family after being gone for three years. (Add detail about Wayne's casting or portrayal here, with attribution.)

I would suggest just going ahead and removing the images now. They don't serve any purpose for the article besides being decorative.
In Critical interpretations, I would suggest that you re-read what you wrote and try to edit the content to have a more neutral tone. Some of the sentences sound casually written when they should be more formal. An example is, "This horrible outburst made clear that..." and could be rewritten not to use the word "horrible" and something more encyclopedic than "made clear". Hope you understand the suggestions I've made.

Good luck with the Production section! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erik (talk • contrib Thanks, and I will get started...Stillstudying 13:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erik (talk • contrib Thanks for your help, and I would appreciate your checking out the new sections, (I took your advice and incorporated the theme section into critial interpretations, and subdivided. I also took your advice and deleted the pictures, and worked more on the character descriptions and the production section. I am gone for a few hours, but would appreciate your evaluation of the work on the article so far...) thanks again.Stillstudying 17:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comments by Stillstudying[edit]

Monkeyzpop To Monkey, I moved your assertation that the strongest motivator for Ethan is his love for his brother's wife to where it properly should be, to the "plot" section - This is discussed by many reviewers as underlying emotion throughout the movie, but it hardly stands as a "theme" in the sense Ford's examination of racism does! While I may agree iwth you - I do think he may well be in love with her, please, whether or not Ethan's character was in love with his brother's wife is a plot twist not a grand theme in the movie. What "theme" would you maintain this shows? Racism is an obvious and incredibly powerful theme for the movie, but love for your brother's wife as a theme? I am not trying to be cruel, but surely you see the problem, not only is this not a theme in the sense of an underlying socio-cultural more, it isn't even certain. The question of Ethan's feelings for his brother's wife has been debated considerably for the last 41 years. For every source you cite that claims this as a theme, others do not. Schneider, for instance, doesn't even consider it worthy of discussing in the same context as the giant themes of hatred and racism. Morever, you miscite your sources - they do discuss the underlying question of whether Ethan loved his brother's wife, but again, this is simply not a socio-cultural theme in the same league with racism!

So I moved this entire mess to "plot" which is where it belongs. I also set to work to correct a number of other things you deleted or changed improperly. For instance, the opening should be 3 paragraphs, and you deleted an outstanding quote by Schneider which explains why the movie is not really from the book, but from real life.

Finally, while I hope we can resolve our differences without an edit war, your swift reverting and the way you did so, without discussion - we do have a peer review going on, that you did not bother to post any of your proposed changes - I would remind you of the 3 edit rule. If you change this 3 times in 24 hours, you should be suspended. I will revert as I have to, unless a majority discusses these issues, and you have consensus for your changes - which I don't believe you have. I have asked others for their input, and will wait on consensus, in the interim, you have reverted twice in 24 hours, a third time warrants suspension. Stillstudying 11:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed your edit summary comment when you reverted me, "What do you think we have peer review for?" It should be noted that nowhere on the main article page nor on the page that comes up for editing the main article does it say a peer review is under way. How is one to know that without a notice on either the article page or the editing page? Monkeyzpop 22:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comments by Monkeyzpop[edit]

I have done my best to eliminate original research from my submissions and have cited where proper. Notwithstanding, having studied this film for forty years, written about it, been published on the topic, interviewed many of the players and crew, and collected possibly the largest private collection of material relating to the film, I obviously have some sense of awareness of the film and its background, themes, and the critical responses it has gotten over the years. Forgive me if I am not as fully confident in your take on things, especially as simple matters such as grammar, spelling, and formatting cause you some difficulty. This is not an insult, rather an observation that one's first look at your submissions makes one wonder how strong your academic credentials are. But that's not as important as reaching a clear-cut encyclopedic version for Wikipedia of what this film is and what the responses to it are. Let's take some of your objections one at a time. But first: let me apologize about the three-revert rule. I was thinking of reverting the material on this page in one fell swoop, but found it physically easier to do it section by section. If I'd done it all as one revert, I'd have not broken the 3RR. I forgot about that. Sorry. (I do note that you, Stillstudying, edited the same page 23 times within 48 hours, a clear and pretty large violation of 3RR itself. ;-) ) Now on to your objections. You've asked for peer review. That's fine. But peer review does not mean no one can edit a page without "permission" or consensus. It just means you're asking for and (hopefully) receiving commentary. Some of the peer review comments about my submissions make sense to me. Others don't. But the first "rule" of Wikipedia, the one that is trumpeted loudly whenever someone new comes aboard, is "If you don't want your material edited brutally, don't submit it." ANYONE can edit a page, whether that page is under peer review or controversy. So I'm sorry if you're unhappy that someone has "edited your material brutally" but there's nothing wrong with that, not by my reading of the rules of Wikipedia. Next: the fact that John Ford "never talked" about Ethan's love for Martha is both wrong and irrelevant. He certainly talks about it -- on-camera! -- in Bogdanovich's Directed by John Ford, but the main point is that Ford doesn't have to be on record talking about something for it to be relevant to the article. As you will note, I referenced about eight different citations regarding the Ethan/Martha love and how it is the unspoken but driving force of the story. That takes nothing away from the racism theme; in fact, it's absolutely interwoven into it and inextricable from the racism theme: Ethan loves Martha, already-hated Indians kill Martha and steal her child, Ethan seeks revenge for Martha, rescue for her child, and then purifying death for the child once Indians have defiled it. The fact that the love between Ethan and Martha has been a topic of scholarly discussion for fifty years is both verifiable and notable. To discard it shows a comparative unfamiliarity with the film's historical analysis and criticism. It's like throwing out all references to outer space in an article on Star Wars just because no one actually says "outer space" in the movie. Next: some of the items I deleted were deleted only because you say them in almost identical words three, four, or five times. In the case of these repetitive items, I did not delete all of them, just the redundant one or misplaced ones. I'm under the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that you think anyone who would dare change what you wrote must be wrong or deliberately interfering. I assure you I am not deliberately interfering, and in this case I don't believe I'm wrong. I've been a published author for many, many years, and before that an English composition teacher. That doesn't make me God, but it makes me fairly well credentialed to critique writing style. I appreciate your efforts, and some of your points are quite wonderful. But your writing style can use some help, and I have tried to help (not so much help you as to help Wikipedia, which to be trustworthy should at least be as well-written as possible). Next: I've spent a lot of time with the LeMay book, and while it differs from the film in notable ways, to say that it "does not resemble the movie at all," as you did, is to ignore willfully what is in the book. Of course the book resembles the film: it has the same characters. It has the same locale. It has the same basic plotline of loss and rescue. These are resemblances! Even if the book takes liberties or detours from the detail of the novel, to say there is no resemblance is demonstrably erroneous. The fact, and I bow to your research on this, that the filmed version may indeed resemble MORE CLOSELY the Cynthia Parker story is no reason to state that it thus bears no resemblance to the book. No one who has experienced both the book and the film is going to take you seriously if you purport that. And I don't believe I edited anything of yours to suggest that the Parker story is not more relevant to the film. I only changed your POV that the book is IRRELEVANT to the film, and suggested that there is a middle ground. Which there is! Clearly these are matters of opinion, which, in Wikipedia terms, means that we can state that there ARE differing opinions (citing them is good), but we cannot insist that one opinion is the ONLY one, which is what you are doing in denying a relationship between the book and the film. You may believe that. I may believe differently. But neither of us can say that the other opinion doesn't exist or is wrong. You bolster your argument by citation, not deleting. I believe I have adhered to Wikipedia rules and tried to bring an objective awareness of this film which I have spent my life studying to this page. You can argue with my placement of certain things. But to insist that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong (which if not in so many words is very much the tone of your edit summaries and talk page contributions on this subject) is quite the antithesis of what Wikipedia aspires to be. Monkeyzpop 21:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: referring to someone else's cited and well-formed submission, whether you agree with it or not, as "this mess" is counterproductive. And I am unaware of a rule stating that openings "should be 3 paragraphs." Please point me to that Wikipedia instruction. And yes, I deleted your quotation regarding the book/movie connection from the opening, as it was repeated several times throughout the article and is not STYLISTICALLY proper for the opening, which should -- from a good writing standpoint -- be a précis of clear definition, not detail. The Wikipedia entry on Film doesn't (and shouldn't) read "Film is a term that encompasses individual motion pictures, the field of film as an art form, and the motion picture industry. Films are produced by recording images from the world with cameras, or by creating images using animation techniques or special effects. The rise of European cinema was interrupted by the breakout of World War I while the film industry in United States flourished with the rise of Hollywood. However in the 1920s, European filmmakers such as Sergei Eisenstein and F. W. Murnau, along with American innovator D. W. Griffith and the contributions of Charles Chaplin, Buster Keaton and others, continued to advance the medium." No, it opens with the first two sentences and saves the detail for later. (Sorry for the long example.) And finally, my "swift" reverting? This is the first time I've ever edited this page, to my memory. I just happened on your changes and edited the page. And I only did it once. You'll notice that even now, though I'm in vehement disagreement with you on several points, I've not re-reverted. Let it stand and let's get some more discussion. I'm glad you don't want an edit war. I don't either. But you seem to be quite willing to presume that's where I'm coming from. I'm not. I just know this film, have huge resources for citing references to it, and want to help, without promoting a POV that I cannot support from other sources. I hope that's acceptable to you. Monkeyzpop 21:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeyzpop I am sorry you chose to take this tact. However, I should not have written I felt your edits were poor, that was uncalled for, so I will take a lighter tact in responding, and hope we can avoid this sort of unpleasantness. First, let me say in plain english that I never said I was right and anyone who disagrees with me wrong - if you read my messages to other editors I have worked with, you would find the opposite to be true, that I seek consensus, and seek third or fourth party opinions when my work differs from someone elses in order that I may find whether mine is lacking. You left a somewhat different message on my talk page, which I responded to differently, and would hope that message would govern our responses. Frankly, I always sigh when someone begins to trumphet their academic achievements. I was educated in the good old law, to answer your question, not as a movie reviewer. But I have a degree in history also, (and another in legal studies), I suppose that qualifies me about as much as you to write an article on this film. To get to the issues and avoid more personal nastiness. First, I never suggested that there is NO relationship between the LeMay book and the Ford movie, I said that there was no nexus to point to except Brit Johnson did rescue his family by ransoming them. I think that needs to be pointed out, and I was careful to cite the close relationship between cold hard facts of the Parker saga and the Ford movie - Schneider said it better than I ever could! I wrote, and mean it, that I seek to work with you and craft an article we both can agree on, rather than engage in an edit war. I note that your edit summary in answering Erik's reversion was at least as tactless as mine. But I don't feel that we have to engage in this sort of unpleasantness, or "how many college degrees do you have, because I have three and that means WHAT?" (I have to admit amusement that you are a published author - I have articles published in the "real world" also, and I taught history in Texas, before the law seized on me! Your insinuations I lack your education please, the personal attacks on my academic credentials - it brings to mind the old saw, if you have the law, cite it, if you have the facts, recite them, if you have neither, call names. I will post this also on the peer review page. I say in closing that I respectfully ask you to not attack me personally - the worst thing I can be acused of in this disagreement is saying I thought your edits were poor. You, on the other hand, stated I am uneducated, (without a clue what my education is), rather suggested I said things I plainly did not, and made this quite personal. I think your attack on me speaks for itself. But I believe we can do differently, if you cease the personal attacks. By the way, the 3RR rule applies to such situations as ours, where one editor reverts the other without discussion and reverts 3 times in 24 hours. You can edit 1000 times in 24 hours if the edits are not reversions. Stillstudying 02:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Finishedwithschool[edit]

I have looked at the article, and the suggested changes by Stillstudying, and Monkeyzpoop. I think his suggestion that John Wayne's character being in love with his sister in law is possible, and a lot of reviewers agree with him, so it is reasonable to put it in the article, but not in the critical interpretation section, certainly. I also think it is no "theme" in the cinematic and/or novel sense of the word, and it is better off in the plot section. The entry paragraphs should be extended, and I like the comment by the reviewer talking about the movie and Cynthia Parker. Finishedwithschool 17:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Finishedwithschool. Monkeyzpop was kind enough to point out numerous spelling and gramatical errors which I have corrected. I hope he feels the placement of the love Ethan has for Martha in the plot is a better fit. Does anyone else have anything, other than I need to find a public picture of Ethan standing in the door - that pictures really sums up Ethan, alone by fate and choice after completely the mission that drove his life. Don't you wonder if he had anything left to live for, after fixating his entire existance on the search for so many years, as James Parker poured his entire life into his search for his niece? Stillstudying 02:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for review of changes by Stillstudying[edit]

Erik (talk • contrib),Monkeyzpop, Finishedwithschool, Alien, I would really appreciate a review of the updated article. I have redone the article in toto, adding a production section, and making the other changes as we have discussed as a group on this page. I have added a number of relevant photos with explanations, and am looking for a fair use photo of Ethan standing in the door at the movie's end, so we can add that, complete with discussion of it's relevance, (him as the eternal outsider, his mission complete he has no place in the civilized home, etc.) Are there other major changes that anyone sees we need to do? Erik? Alien? Monkey is out of town, and will weigh in when he returns. Anyone else? How does everyone like the article now? Stillstudying 13:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation of changes oldwindybear[edit]

Nice job of rewriting. You managed to address the lack of a production section, and did what I believe is a very nice job of creating a good critical interpretation section. I liked the pictures you put in, liked the comments, and felt all in all you raised the article from a B to a GA, but that is my personal opinion! old windy bear 17:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mummy (1999 film)[edit]

I feel that this successful popcorn film that kickstarted a franchise could be easily upgraded to GA status with a little more work. Any comments, suggestions or help would be greatly appreciated. --J.D. 14:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin & McCarthy[edit]

~~First, try to find some way of merging the "Book of Amon-Ra" section into the main text of the article.~~

I ended up cutting it out completely. It wasn't really necessary. --J.D. 20:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Second, the picture in the plot summary doesn't really illustrate the text well. I thought that in the film they actually had a creepy-looking CG mummy. Perhaps a picture of him would be better.~~

Removed picture. --J.D. 20:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third, there are still a few sentences in the "production" section that don't have a citation. To get this to GA that will have to be remedied.

Fourth, the reception section doesn't really have a proper comment on the general perception of the film. Something like "reviews were mixed, with critics commenting on (whatever they took note of)" that may incorporate some of the quoted reviews. The rating aggregation sites will also need citations.--Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Erik

Fraser and Weisz should be wiki-linked in the Plot section like everyone else. Wiki-links can be redundant for each new section.
Is there a need for Characters related to The Mummy? It seems that any important actions by the characters would already be mentioned in Plot, and a brief background description can be provided for each character in Cast. Also, can the Cast section be expanded to have some detail about the casting of each actor or how they carried out their role? (For example, is Rick O'Connell based on anyone real or fictional? Why was Arnold Vosloo chosen as the antagonist?)
The picture of Rachel Weisz as Evelyn at the beginning of Production seems purely decorative; she's already displayed with the other protagonists in Cast. I suggest removal of this image. If you want to break the monotony of the text, I would suggest implement quoteboxes (see Aaron Sorkin) of any significant quotes.
I see the Casting section now. Could this be merged into Cast? It would make the Cast section more than just a dry list.
Is there a need for the Soundtrack section for The Mummy? If it was notable, it would be better to mention critical reaction to the music, and background to the music, instead of the track listing and the soundtrack template.
Reception should reflect when the first festival release of this film, if any, took place, and also the opening date of this film (which does not seem to be mentioned here). I would also cite the editing in England, which I assume was done by the BBFC. Also, it may be an issue to quote three reviewers at length. There are better ways to write a Critical reaction section, in my opinion -- see Spider-Man 3#Critical reaction.
In External links, I don't think that the Angelfire.com link is appropriate for inclusion.

Hope you can make use of my suggestions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notting Hill (film)[edit]

I got this to GA in less than a week and would like some comments before it can get any higher quality. I don't know, maybe I can get this to FA in the future but not for a while. So any comments at all would be good. Gran² 17:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dune (film)[edit]

This article has come along way, and is very informative, in excellent shape and worthy of a GA or FA status. Please provide some suggestions. Angel2001 09:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basic stuff like citation templates and fair use rationales for images are necessary. I also recommend finding a few books to further cite the subject at hand. Alientraveller 14:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further, I also think production can be expanded with sub-sections if necessary, studying also why there were departures from the book, rather than coming off as trivia original research. Alientraveller 14:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Scissorhands[edit]

I have done a lot of work on this article, cleaned it up and added extensive information - it's a big improvement from what it previously looked like. I'd like some comments and suggestions on how to upgrade this article to a GA/FA status. Cheers, James Morton (User) 09:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This citation "Roger Ebert of The Chicago Sun Times was one of the few to give it a dismissive review, feeling it may be too dark for children and lacked character building, and concluded that the end was so lame that it was disheartening to the viewer.[20]" doesn't exist - can you please fix that? Also, the prose rambles in places, especially the plot. -Malkinann 00:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing information for the screenshots are lacking in detail, and, vitally, fair use rationales. Suggest looking at existing FAs, e.g. Jaws (film) to see what is required. A section about the music would be good too. Suggest using cite web etc templates for consistency and encourage all relevant information. The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raiders of the Lost Ark[edit]

I think that this article is in excellent shape and could very well be eligible for GA status. Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. --Count Ringworm 14:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that jumps out at me is the lead section is extremely short. If you can fix that (see: Wikipedia:Lead section, especially The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article), I think you have a very good article. Gopher backer 20:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saving Private Ryan[edit]

The article is currently under improvement, most of the work done by User:Lepeu1999. Despite a proper Development section (on its way), what is needed for the GA or FA? igordebraga ≠ 15:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erik[edit]

The lead section should have only two or three full paragraphs.
The Plot section should be under 900 words per WikiProject Films' style guidelines.
There needs to be a Production section to reflect in more detail about how this project got started. When was the idea first introduced? Was the project fast-tracked to production? Why did Spielberg join the project; why did Hanks?
There does not need to be so much "historical background" about the actual events if there is already an article on it.
Filming locations should be combined with the new Production section, since it is a part of the process.
Portrayal of combat could be renamed to something else, since there were adjustments that weren't combat-related (like the tank models and the change of division). Not sure if this section could be broken up into actual details of production and criticism of the historical presentation (which would go under Reception).
The article could use an image that would illustrate as many of the main characters (especially Hanks' and Damon's characters) as possible, as well as the D-Day invasion scene, which seems (at least, from my readings) to be the most talked-about scene in the film.
Reception section could be more detailed; some questions below to answer:

When and where was its world premiere?
When and where was its US premiere (was the first US showing commercial or at a festival)?
Is there any information about how many other countries the film was showed in?
The specific percentage at Rotten Tomatoes could be included, as well as specific reviews covering the pros and cons of the film.
What did British and German reviewers think of the film?
Any WWII historians that reviewed the film? (Take a look at Apocalypto -- poorly structured article, but there are quite a few reviews of that film by historians.)
"...being one of a few that have won the Best Director award without also winning Best Picture" is not addressed at the IMDb citation and probably not addressed at the Academy's official list, either. A citation should be found to support this observation.

References should have citation templates applied to them -- see Template:Cite news and Template:Cite web.
Some areas that may need to be covered:

Is there anything encyclopedic about the VHS or DVD release of the film? Did it have anything that was left out of the theatrical release? Was it successful with VHS/DVD sales and rentals?
Wasn't the film aired on TV uncut? I don't know if I'm confusing this with Schindler's List, but this may be a similar controversy that could be addressed.
How were casting decisions made, especially for Hanks and Damon?
I would suggest taking a look at the film's IMDb trivia; there is some information that could be followed up on and integrated into the article (not as trivia, of course) with citations attached. There is some casting talk on that page, but I don't know if it's true.

Feel free to respond to my suggestions, and I'll add further commentary. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only problem with the IMDB trivia suggestion is it's a Wiki itself and anyone can add to it. I'm not sure that part's a valid source.--Lepeu1999 00:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; what I meant was to use it as a guideline to see if that information exists out there, and not cite IMDB directly. Just follow up on some of the information if you have time, such as Mel Gibson and Harrison Ford being considered for the role of Captain John Miller. I've found that some trivia bits have some grain of truth to them, as I found with some things for Spider-Man. Of course, never cite the trivia page for IMDb directly, just take keywords and see if you can find matching information at an attributable source. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cast list should be set out in Actor as character syle with a small bit of info about them. Buc 16:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images also need fair use rationales. See passed GA/FAs film articles for examples. --Nehrams2020 04:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Instinct[edit]

I have completly rewriten this article for GA and then FA status. Any suggestions would be helpful. The article was really lacking in terms of information, impact, ect., and its such a '90s defining film, I'm suprised it doesn't already have a GA or FA status. So again, suggestions will be fantastic. Angel2001 12:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belovedfreak[edit]

THe article seems quite comprehensive and there's a lot of interesting information in there but there are some problems I've noticed:

All images used in the article need Fair use rationales.
You need to use proper citation templates for your references.
There are quite a lot of statements in there that still needs referencing. Also, you might need to find some better sources. You seem to be quite reliant on the trivia section of IMDb and that's not a very reliable source.
Phrases like "Many considered this to fall very short of expectations..." need cleaning up and to have sources. We need to know who exactly you're talking about. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words.
One small point about the plot - is it really necessary to mention "During the confrontation, she unfolds her legs to reveal she is not wearing any underwear..."? I know that this scene is probably the most famous thing about the film, but it seems to kind of stick out in the plot, it's not really relevant to the story. I don't know if you could find somewhere else in the article to mention it.
Phrases in the plot like "This is his way of feeling empowerment." sound like Original research.

I hope some of this helps. --Beloved freak 10:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section feels overwhelming I think. Before you even get to the main section. Whataboutbob 18:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glengarry Glen Ross (film)[edit]

A lot of work has gone into this article to improve it in terms of content. It could definitely use some beefing up in the Plot/Synopsis section. Any help, comments, etc. would be greatly appreciated. --Count Ringworm 13:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I have not seen this film. In case that makes a difference. It could use a few more refs here and there, and not only in places that are already mark with {{fact}}. You are right to identify the Synopsis as a weak area; it would be improved to some degree just with a rewrite, but a bit of expansion would not be a bad thing. The quote "the weaselly soul of Glengarry Glen Ross-Willy Loman turned into a one-liner." is not quite clear, so either explain it or cut the quote down to the first half. I mean, who is Willy Loman and what exactly would happen if he was turned into a one-liner? Incidentally, it should not have a hyphen with no spaces, but a dash instead, like – or — with spaces. I hate seeing contractions in writing, and I found and fixed one example. I think that the lead section could be revised to remove the specifics about the profanity (which is a bit in-your face) and expand on that elsewhere. The lead is supposed to be a summary and introduction, and some of the following content could be touched upon in the lead in order to expand it a little bit. Anyway, that is all that I can think of at the moment. Adrian M. H. 15:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Club (film)[edit]

I aspire to see this film article reach FA status. I've improved it enormously to be well-rounded in terms of production information and themes. I'd like suggestions about if anything needs to be added or trimmed for anything in the Production section, as well as any clear-ups needed for the Themes section. Also, is the Reception section comprehensive enough, or does there need to be more coverage about the film? Are the references used satisfactory? Are the external links and the literature in "Further reading" appropriate? Answers to these questions as well as any other critical observations are welcome. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks real good to meWhataboutbob 18:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment - The article looks great, much better than when I saw it several months ago. You could mention that the film (well really the book) also spawned a video game, Fight Club (video game). Furthermore, I've seen some Featured articles (ex Final Fantasy XII) to verify certain plot details by citing scenes from the movie. That's about it, keep up the excellent work! --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 22:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin and McCarthy[edit]

Just a few things I saw.

In production, perhaps specify the "Bite fight" rather than just link to Mike Tyson. And maybe change "big breasts" to "large breasts".
A citation may be needed for the narrator being named "Jack" in the script. And someone might even want the page number for when the narrator is in the asylum.

And maybe a few more of the aticles in references should be linked, if possible. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I revised the wiki-link about the bite to lead to The Bite Fight, but piped it to say, "Mike Tyson's act" to make it directly clear without having to visit the wiki-link to understand.
The Empire citation for the aliases also applies to "Jack" being in the script.
I'll try to find the page number for the mental asylum, though I don't have the book available to me right now.
A number of the references used for the film article came from magazines. However, they've been made available online (illegally, I believe) here, so I hesitated to wiki-link to them. Any suggestions about that?

Keep the tips coming! :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support All the ingredients for a GA -good work! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 12:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quills[edit]

I think this article has improved greatly, but could benefit from another set of eyes! Ultimately aiming for a GA, I would love some feedback on the prose and some advice on how to make it flow a bit more naturally. Would also like to hear what someone who hasn't seen the film has to say about it-- whether the plot description feels complete and informative? Any bits that would be okay to take out? Thank you all so much for your time! M. F. Gaede 04:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crzy cheetah[edit]

The Cast section needs to go after Production

Done!

I don't like the placement of the Image:01 quills.jpg. Maybe it can go under the Cast section.

I agree. I'd actually kind of forgotten about that image. Done, and considering making it a bit bigger.

Keep WP:CITE in mind when adding the refs.

Bah! This is so hard to find after the fact! I found a few instances with spaces in between the words and one with extra punctuation. Doh. Habit.

Get rid of the "HTML"'s from the references. 90% of the online sources are in html format, so I don't see any need to point that out.

I just copied the template verbatim, but yeah, unnecessary information. I did keep the format description for the one that's a PDF file, since that's less common.

Try to find a substitute to the imdb sources. IMDB is considered an unreliable source when it comes to business data.

Should I replace all the IMDb sources? It's not necessarily impossible, but kind of tough. I can, however, get rid of the IMDb business data listing, since the boxofficemojo.com listing has the same exact information.

I would recommend to change all imdb sources.

Changed IMDb Film Locations ref to MovieLocations.com ref, Full Cast List ref to Yahoo!Movies cast list ref, simply removed soundtrack ref as unnecessary, kept release date ref as is irreplaceable, changed Marat/Sade IMDb synopsis ref to an official MGM ref. Yahoo!Movies cast list is easier to navigate and more complete (it looks like), MovieLocations.com is v. in-depth and really the only other place I could find with the information

You have two {{spoiler}} tags without {{endspoiler}}. Fix that.

Done! Do you have any idea how many times I have noticed this and forgotten to fix it?

Is there a reason why the subsections of Reaction use Level 4 headings?

Er, because I was equal sign happy? Fixed.

Oh and the critical reception under Reaction needs to be the first subsection, in my opinion.

All right! I bow to your superior experience!

These were the problems I noticed. I don't see any major issues in this article, other than the reference problems I stated. Good luck in WP:GAC.

Thank you so much for your input and keen eyes!

Crzycheetah 19:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow[edit]

I think that this article has real potential to reach GA status. All it needs is to be cleaned up some more. I've already gone in and added citations to all the necessary places (except for one and I may just delete that bit) but it could still use some additional editing, clean-up, etc. Any suggestions, comments, etc. would be greatly appreciated. Count Ringworm 19:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC) :The most readily apparent change that needs to be made is the inclusion of references and clean-up for the Homages section. If you can't find any reliable sources for that section, I would remove it. Also, the images need fair use rationales. --Brandt Luke Zorn 21:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --J.D. 15:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once Upon a Forest[edit]

This is my third visit to Film PR. Right now, I am in the midst of getting an article about one of my favourite cartoons to FA level, on or before Easter, as promised in a previous edit summary of mine and on my to-do list. Thanks to Jerry Beck's Animated Movie Guide (I now have it amid an inter-library loan) and various web sources, the page is now starting to get complete.

Except maybe for the screenshots: while images may or may not be pre-requisites for all FAs, for me it's something else. I have the film on my laptop, but, sad to say, our battery's wiring has most certainly run its course. So, on the family PC, I'm trying to do my best without them.

If you see anything in the article that has to be cleaned or fixed (see also this list for potential ideas), please let me know. Wish me the best of luck by the deadline. --Sl g r a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 03:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zodiac (film)[edit]

A lot of work has been done on this entry and I think it is not far away from either GA or FA status with maybe a little more input and advice from others. I would appreciate any help or suggestions you may have. Count Ringworm 17:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All dates need linking. Plot could be expanded considering it's close to three hours. WikiNew 18:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot definitely could use expansion, also a 1-2 fair use pics could be added to the production section. Quadzilla99 04:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally I changed one or two things—saying reviews have been generally positive when it got an 87% score on rottentomatoes, strikes me as suffering from wiki NPOV paranoia. With numbers like that it's well within reason to say they've been highly positive. The actors complaints don't belong in the post-production section, ~~also the MPAA and Box office sections are hopeless one sentence stubs, either expand them or merge them under a section called simply "Reaction".~~ Here's a couple of phrases that could be put into more formal language:

~~"he was raised in Marin County during the Zodiac Killer's reign of terror." Replace reign of terror with active years or something of the sort.~~

Addressed by Ringworm. Quadzilla99 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Graysmith went from cartoonist to crime-stopper." Very hokey.~~

Addressed by Ringworm. Quadzilla99 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Fincher was keen to work with Shire" This might be British language, sounds informal to me.~~

Addressed by Ringworm. Quadzilla99 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also as a side note I've never seen the film so I didn't read the plot section, so I don't know if that needs work. Quadzilla99 04:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of these helpful suggestions. I've implemented several of them already. Count Ringworm 14:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay nice work, I'll look it over again today or tomorrow and see what else I can point out. Quadzilla99 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]