Wikipedia:Peer review/A Short Vision/archive1
Appearance
Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see what the article could be improved on. And, see, how to get the article to a Good Article, or maybe Featured. Your help will be appreciated.
Thanks, Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 15:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
--
Hey, neat article. I feel what you have is good, but there are some things you could do to make it even better.
- You're relying mainly on two sources. Are there any others you could find? Having other critical commentaries, reviews, or sources that speak about the influnce the film had would be really useful. The article would benefit it was a bit more broad or had more material.
- State who made each claim. There are claims in the article like "Sullivan was incorrect". Who said he was incorrect? It would be useful if you put that in the article so we can tell who said it. This also helps with Neutral Point Of View. I added some 'who?' templates to try and help point out areas that could be improved.
- The article says the film was controversial. Can we clarify who thought so? Why was it controversial? What did people do about it?
- The 'Synopsis' section seems like it is just stating everything that happened in the film. Is that accurate? How long is the film? I feel like the article would be better served if it had a shorter synopsis, and didn't list everything line by line. Maybe take a look at Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary or Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Plot for tips.
- The article says "The scheme also funded an earlier Foldes' animation entitled Animated Genesis about a society which is under threat from a tyrant." By 'scheme' does it mean the 'British Film Institute's Experimental Film Fund'? I'm not clear on how this sentence is relevant or related to the film or article. Is it possible to clarify?
Hope that helps. Happy writing! --Culix (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)