Wikipedia:Peer review/Blue Velvet (film)/archive1

Blue Velvet (film)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has already achieved GA status and I would like to know how far it is from being FA status, and what work needs to be done / what needs to be improved.

Thanks, Nrichie 28 (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Finetooth comments: This is interesting and broad in coverage but needs further work to achieve FA. Here are my suggestions for improvement.

• The entire article needs another careful proofing to catch and fix mistakes that can't possibly survive FAC. In the lead, for example, "Since it's initial theatrical release... " should be "Since its initial theatrical release... ". In the third paragraph, three incorrect "whom"s appear in constructions such as "forming a sexual relationship with the alluring torch singer, Dorothy Vallens, whom may be connected to the ear." That should be "... Vallens, who may be connected to the ear." Elsewhere in the lead, Lumberton is called "idealistic", but only people can be idealistic. Perhaps "idealized" is the right word. Other minor errors include shifts in verb tense from past to present within the same sentence. For example, the last sentence of "Critical reception" says, "During an online Q&A session with Ebert in 2007, he said he still feels bad for how Rossellini was treated, but said he should re-visit the film and that David Lynch is a good director." For consistency, that should be "During an online Q&A session with Ebert in 2007, he said he still felt bad about how Rossellini was treated but said he should re-visit the film and that David Lynch was a good director." The article is not riddled with error, but typos, grammatical errors, and odd verb tenses appear here and there throughout.

• The citation-needed tags need to be addressed. In addition, the last paragraph of the "Symbolism" subsection lacks a source even though the claims it makes are not common knowledge. The claim about the ear as symbol may be perfectly true, but it must be attributed to a reliable source to satisfy WP:V. Related to concerns about sourcing and attribution are the remarks about plagiarism made by User:Moni3 on the article's talk page. Have they been addressed?

• It's doubtful that four fair-use images are necessary for a reader's understanding of the subject matter.

• WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists says in part, "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." The list in the "Current rankings" section could easily be rendered as straight prose.

• The "Current rankings" head is ambiguous in that "current" is not specific but changes with the passage of time. Something like "Rankings through 2007" would be better. Or give the range; i.e, "Rankings from 1999 through 2007" or whatever the case may be.

• In the "Casting" section, a sentence says, "Prior to his casting in this film, Hopper had experienced little success due to a phase of rehabilitation and thus had been featured in very few films; Blue Velvet successfully re-launched his career." This contradicts the statement a few sentences earlier that Hopper had achieved fame in films like Easy Rider. I think you need to specify a range of dates between Hopper's earlier success and his later success. In addition, readers will want to know what kind of rehabilitation Hopper needed and for how long.

References

• Citation 44 is malformed. Other citations lack access dates.
• Are things like sloth.org reliable sources?
• The date formatting in the citations need to be consistent to pass FAC. You can use yyyy-mm-dd or m-d-y but not both.
• The abbreviations for page and pages needs to be consistent throughout.
• If you use "Retrieved yyyy-mm-dd" in one citation, it should not be "accessed yyyy-mm-dd" in another citation.
• Citation 54 has a dead url.
• The dabfinder tool that lives here finds four links that go to disambiguation pages rather than the intended targets.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)