Wikipedia:Peer review/Blackrock (film)/archive1

Blackrock (film)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because having recently expanded it significantly and successfully nominated it for GA, I now intend to nominate it for FAC as soon as my current FAC nomination (The Spirits Within) is passed or closed. As I just nominated that FAC yesterday, I anticipate it not closing or being passed for several weeks, thus giving this peer review plenty of time. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this peer review as i'm satisfied with the one response i've got, I think it's unlikely there will be further comments, and I have another article i'd like to list for peer review. Freikorp (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Prhartcom

I'm happy to copy edit this article. I can see that it certainly is a Good Article. I am working on it now and have these notes/questions:

"After witnessing three males interrupting the couple and then raping Tracy"; Let's break this into more than one sentence. Giving the rape action it's own sentence will make this passage a little more dramatic instead of the offhand remark it seems to be now.

Have a look at the changes I made and let me know what you think. I may have gone into too much detail. Also as you have not seen the film I think I should clarify something that may be confusing. As stated in the article, the rape scene was edited in the Australian version (the version I have seen). While Toby is clearly annoyed when his consensual sex with Tracy is interrupted, it isn't clearly shown onscreen if he joins the other males in raping her, though he is shown running away together with them, and later pleads guilty to her rape. Freikorp (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That fixed it and that was an important one to get right; it's really good now. I don't think the point you mentioned needs to go into the article. Notice that further down I added that Ricko had found Tracy "walking" on the beach, as opposed to Ricko found Tracy on the beach, which could have meant that he found her motionless body. Feel free to change the word to "wandering" or similar. Prhartcom (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A comma should usually not be placed before an "and" when that word separates two phrases, e.g. "He is torn between the need to tell the truth and the desire to protect his friends". It should usually be placed at the end of an introductory phrase, e.g. "As Ricko finishes his confession, the police arrive". MOS:COMMA has some comma notes, but the MOS is not designed to instruct grammar. I am interested in hearing what you think about this. I am making the comma corrections to this article; feel free to revert any changes.
I believe themes and critical analysis exist in the present, rather than the past, tense. The filmmaker or critic may have written their piece yesterday, but their work speaks today. This writing practice tends to avoid passive voice and lends to reading that feels more alive, while still keeping the required encyclopedic style. (An exception would be a direct quote; the interview occurred in the past.) I am interested in hearing what you think about this. I am making the tense corrections to this article; feel free to revert any changes.
It's okay to correct punctuation/typographical errors in a quote as long as we do not affect the speaker's intended meaning, since the punctuation marks were not actually spoken (See WP:QUOTE). I am correcting punctuation in the quotes (e.g. fixing a run-on sentence); feel free to revert any changes.
A person's name should not be mentioned in an article for the first time without giving some sort of introduction to who they are. We shouldn't assume the reader will already know and we don't force the reader to interrupt their reading to click on the click. We are obligated to briefly provide a word or three that introduces them so that the reader can put them into context. I am providing brief introductions to the people to this article who don't already have them; please feel free to revert or make any changes.

I'm very pleased with all the changes you've made thus far. Freikorp (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(The same goes for places.) This article has obviously had a thorough copy edit before I stumbled into it; there are long passages without a single error. Still, I suppose it's interesting how another pair of eyes can find things others had not. Thanks for trusting me enough to have a look at it. I should finish it later today. Prhartcom (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just asking if the sources really say that the director really cut ten whole minutes from the film to improve the rating? That sounds unlikely considering shots are just seconds long; think how many shots that would be. The source isn't online so I hope I am not causing you a trip to the library. If that's what the sources say then it's fine; I suppose the director cut shots from all over the movie as opposed to just the rape scene as the article implies.

It's all good. I had to search through microfilm to find the articles, but I made PDF copies of all of them. If you want any I can email them to you. Unfortunately I forgot to write down the page numbers for some of them (you may have noticed some offline sources have page numbers and others do not) so i'm anticipating someone making me go back up to the library to get them when this is at FA, but that shouldn't take up more than 45 minutes of my time. The source states: "Vidler shot 110 hours of film. In January, at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah, he screened 100 minutes of it, which immediately scored an R rating back home. The rape scenes were deemed "too harrowing and confronting" for an MA rating ("which was absolutely essential," says the producer of Blackrock, David Elfick, "if we were going to reach our 15- to 18-year-old target audience"). So Vidler had to cut 10 minutes from the film." Granted I don't think 10 minutes of rape scene were cut from the film either, i'm curious as to what else was cut. Freikorp (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Drewe was linked both to Robert Drewe and Robert Drew (in the citation). I assumed the first is correct and corrected the second. I am also a bit confused why a novelist would review a movie; he had no description in the article so I added "Australian novelist and critic" ("Australian" because people with many nationalities are in that section and his perspective is described). I do not know if this is right so please check everything I did and make any corrections.

Yes the first one was correct (or at least the spelling is). I assume it's the same Robert Drewe as the novelist as that Robert Drewe also worked as a reporter for several Australian newspapers, according to referenced information at his wiki article. Freikorp (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could archive the web sources (thank-you on behalf of future readers). (I need to do this too on some of my open articles.)

Done. 3 of the sources couldn't be archived. Freikorp (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you use the {{sfn}} template to refer to your Bibliography; that's great; too bad you didn't do that consistently for all sources. (I understand; I do when I start or rewrite an article from scratch but not when I improve an existing article.)

I've been under the impression that you only use sfn for books and journal articles. My first successful FA was actually Murder of Leigh Leigh, and that's what I was told to do there. Do you use it for all sources? Freikorp (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do, here are three of my examples (here, here, and here). That's silly; the documentation from {{sfn}} and {{sfnm}} say nothing of that; of course it's good for all kinds of citations. I also couldn't find anyone at that FAR mentioning it. Congrats on that FA; that article looks extremely detailed.

Wonderful that you are providing archives to the online sources and astounding that you have decided to convert to sfn; I am quite happy and impressed at your dedication! Prhartcom (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the review. Very good job on this article! I believe it is well-written and comprehensive in it's coverage of the film. I like how the Themes section appears first below the Plot summary and Cast list. Some portions of the article, such as the closing paragraph of the Reception section, achieve the "brilliant" writing requirement for FA. It was interesting for me to learn of mateship and of Heath Ledger's debut credited role (he first appeared to us Yanks in 10 Things I Hate About You), as well to become submersed in Australian culture (I am currently also doing that as I watch my guilty pleasure Beauty and the Geek Australia). From just reading the summary, I'm afraid I agree with David Rooney's assessment of the film. I may not ever be given a chance to see it anyway. Best wishes as you take this article to FA! Let's continue working together. Prhartcom (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]