Wikipedia:Peer review/Bringing Up Baby/archive2

Bringing Up Baby

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

I've listed this article for peer review because alot of work has gone into this article in the last year and a half, including a great Copy Edit and I would like to see it continue to improve. It has consistently gotten poor feedback on the quality assessment page. I attempted a peer review a while ago and got no takers. Hoping to find someone this time.

Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wadewitz

I'm going to read the article in more depth but my first question is why there is no "Themes" or "Style" or "Genre" section. There is a lot of amazing film criticism about this movie and very little of it is used to flesh out this article. If you look at Blade Runner or Mulholland Drive, you will see what is possible with a film article. So much has been written on this film, that a really great article is possible! Wadewitz (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the rest of the article, I feel like all it needs is some good copyediting. Here are some spots I noticed:

The film tells the story of a paleontologist in a number of predicaments involving a woman with a unique sense of logic and a leopard named Baby - What does "unique sense of logic" mean?
Nichols and Wilde began a relationship during their collaboration, and went on to write other screenplays together. - Unclear what kind of relationship - clarify it is a writing partnership.
In general the lead feels too long and detailed. I would suggest taking out about half of the material. Summarize more. It is not important to put in all of the details about the reception, for example.
In the "Filming" section there are quite a few sentences that repeat information from previous sentences. For example, Beginning at the Arthur Ranch shoot,[25] Grant and Hepburn often ad-libbed their dialogue; production was delayed as the two stars ruined shots by making each other laugh.[26] The scene where Grant frantically asks Hepburn where his bone is was shot from 10 am until well after 4 pm because of the stars' laughing fits.[27] The film was further delayed, and after one month of shooting Hawks was seven days behind schedule. During the filming, Hawks would refer to four different versions of the film's script and make frequent changes to scenes and dialogue.[25] Some delays were caused by Hawks' leisurely attitude on set; on several occasions he shut down production so cast and crew could see a horse race,[27] and he took twelve days to shoot the Westlake jail scene instead of the scheduled five. - In this passage the idea of delay in introduced in almost every sentence as is the idea of filming - you can remove a lot of these phrases and words.
Hawks and Hepburn had a confrontation one day during shooting. While Hepburn was chatting with a crew member, Hawks yelled "Quiet!" until the only person still talking was Hepburn. When Hepburn paused and realized that everyone was looking at her, she asked what was the matter; Hawks asked her if she was finished imitating a parrot. Hepburn took Hawks aside, telling him never to talk to her like that again since she was old friends with most of the crew. When Hawks (an older friend of the crew) asked a lighting tech who he would rather drop a light on, Hepburn agreed to behave on set. A variation of this scene (with Grant yelling "Quiet!") was incorporated into the film. - I'm wondering if this can be summarized instead of narrated.

I hope this helps! Wadewitz (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wade for your input. I've given this an edit and in my opinion it now meets GA criteria but might need a minor copyedit in part which I've requested. I gave the lead a significant trim and reworded in parts. GAs don't need masses of critical commentary and I've looked in google books and am content with the coverage it already has.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that GAs do not need lots of critical commentary, but this article has no sections devoted to the topics I mentioned. If you check the MLA and JSTOR databases, for example, you will find some good articles. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what experts think is important about a topic and film critics definitely think that genre and themes are important. This article even points out the importance of this film in the evolution of the screwball comedy, so making that more prominent by making it a section is vital, in my opinion. Wadewitz (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access, can you suggest some sources and I'll get somebody who does to email me them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Swaab's book will probably has a good deal of theory on the film.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to it, do you?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going away for the weekend but will get you a list and send the articles when I return! Wadewitz (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]