Wikipedia:Peer review/Blade Runner/archive1

Blade Runner

This article is a failed FAC candidate. I believe the majority of issues have been taken care of; but to help ensure a smooth third nomination by me; I'd like to submit the article to scrutiny. I'm particularly concerned with any sections that could/should be added to make the article comprehensive; but given my passion for the subject matter I'm not the best person to figure out what those might be. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good, one of our best articles on a film. My major concern is that having Themes in Blade Runner as a separate article doesn't seem like a good idea. I would want to see more on themes in the main article, and some things sent to the subarticle, such as the full debate over Deckard's humanity, seem out of place. I suggest summarizing themes and integrating it into the main page. A single 40Kb article is less of a problem than two arbitrarily divided ones. - SimonP 13:19, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I cannot see reintegration as the better option; certainly the section needs to beefed up, and I admit neglecting it over a matter of indecision on my part on what to use (my lead or the original, and quite marvelous, original text) which is in the BR article now. I suppose if I can't beat'em join'em, meaning I should integrate the two and expand it a touch; maybe into five paragraphs. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's good, but still needs improvement. Creators section should be renamed into Production or something similar and include information such as when filming began and ended. I felt Synopsis was confusing and in some cases way too detailed. When an important charachter is introduced take the time to introduce that charachters role (not just using parenthsis) and maybe a little of that charachters personality. When describing events avoid too much detail, and I also felt the synopsis section used to many short awkward sentences. Influence and Awards should be moved after Synopsis and Themes should be moved between Synopsis and Influence and Awards. Also you are missing information about the Cast. Use Casablanca (film) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films as guides.

Alright, although I'm confused as to where its confusing, and why would I want to cut details of events, but then upgrade character details (which I agree with)? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining the charachters will help with the confusion. About too much detail, sentences like this: "However, Leon surprises Deckard and knocks his gun to the ground before beating him senseless in an alleyway. Just as he is about to kill Deckard, Rachael shoots Leon in the head." This can be condensed into something similar to: "Leon suprised Deckard and they fight, and just as Deckard is about to be killed, Rachel shoots Leon in the head." MechBrowman 01:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

While I appreciate your help, you getting rid of "useless detail" is in effect diminishing the quality of the synopsis. "Deckard visits the Tyrell Corporation to meet the company's owner" is completely at odds with the storyline that Deckard was "sent" there to test wether Nexus-6's can be detected; not to "visit" or "meet Tyrell". You asked to expand on the character detail, but then remove my newly constructed intro of Rachael. Frankly I'm annoyed having spent over an hour agonizing over what to insert without bloating the size of the synopsis. Generally speaking your version lacks dramatic nuance, and contains several typos; and while I'm no expert at tense putting "had" in several places is confusing. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The part about visiting Tyrell Corporation I had to rewrite last becasue there was absolutely no indication in that paragraph about what mattered to the main plot. Taking so much time to explain why Deckard went to Tyrell Corporation is too much detail. All you need to explain is what happens there, because what happens there effects the main plot later in the film.

Neither version has "dramatic nuance". Both are generally awkward reads, and basically poorly written. I feel my version is better only because I took out scenes and long explanations of facts that don't belong in a synopsis.

The information you put about the charachters was not what I meant at all. I meant their personality or at least what your first impression of what the charachter is like. Not if they are bearded and in their thirties. This is just my opionion about how much needs to go into the synopsis. The main problem with the synopsis is it's flow and sentence structure, and if more detail would make it sound better I think thats fine. No matter what, the Synopsis needs more work. MechBrowman 14:50, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I gave it another whirl. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's much better, good work! MechBrowman 12:47, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

This sentence: "It could be argued the strong visuals serve to create a dehumanized world where human elements stand out. Furthermore the relationship between Deckard and Rachael could be essential in reaffirming their respective humanity." Sentences like this need to be avoided at all costs. Who is arguing this? What is "it"? For example instead say, "Other critics have countered that...". MechBrowman 15:48, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've performed a copyedit of the article, along with some other changes, such as resizing some of the pictures (the billboard screenshot seemed a bit too big). MechBrowman summed up a lot of the things I thought while reading the article, but I thought I'd share my opinions anyway:

The sections should be as follows: Lead Section, Synopsis, Themes, Cast, Film critics (renamed as Criticism), Awards and nominations, Influence (split Influence and Awards into two sections - see below), Versions, Soundtracks, and Literature, TV and games (renamed as Literature and games - see below), followed by See also, References, and External links.
The Synopsis section should have the actors' wikilinked names in parentheses after the first mention of their character in the text.
The Themes section needs expanding. This shouldn't be too difficult, since the main themes article is so long.
Closely related to the above, a cast list section should be created. Apart from Harrison Ford, I had absolutely no idea which actor played whom until I consulted the IMDb page.
In addition to the awards table, a list of award nominations the film received could be compiled (I believe it was nominated for a few Oscars, although I'm not sure about that). Then, the Awards and nominations section could be split off from the Influence section.
The Soundtrack section could do with some quotes from critics.
The Literature, TV and games section doesn't mention any television productions related to the film. If there aren't any, just rename it Literature and games.
"It has been widely hailed as a modern classic in league with 2001: A Space Odyssey and praised as being as influential among science fiction films as Metropolis." - by who?
"Deeley secured financing for the film from a range of sources (which later proved to be a problem)" - why?

On a more general, slightly less actionable criticism, the whole tone of the article seems a tad fannish and POV. There's a lot on what future films were influenced by Blade Runner and how it is thought of now, but I didn't really get a sense of the mixed reception the film supposedly received upon its release. That said, if not quite FA-worthy yet, this is by far one of the better film articles I've seen on Wikipedia. Good work to all those who have contributed to it. Extraordinary Machine 20:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wheew, I'll get to all this in a bit; re: "widely hailed", I think I got that from BFI modern classics. Thanks. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, great work. The article is now friendlier to the casual reader than the previous version. I'd recommend providing sources for the quotes from critics, though, and also integrating them into the text (and could you find out their names, if possible). Also, the Cast section now seems very POV... perhaps more critical quotes here would reduce the fannish tone (e.g. "Some Critic said Hauer was "powerful" in his role). But like I said, apart from that, great work. This is definitely on the road to becoming FA-quality. I also applaud you for keeping major spoilers confined to the Synopsis section. Extraordinary Machine 20:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and much thanks. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]