Wikipedia:Peer review/Bride of Frankenstein/archive1
This peer review discussion has been closed.
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take this to featured status and need some advice on how to get it there.
Got here from a Help Desk "tip". OK, first, you'll have to take into account that I'm a very new editor here. I'm still at what you might call a "stub-class" editor. ;) ... I didn't see anything mentioning DVD, or Blu-Ray releases, or anything in the line of subsequent releases really (but I'll re-read again in case I missed that part), and wondered if that could be added to the article? Other than that - I think it is very well written, formatted, and presented. Ched (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: This is an interesting, well-written article that I enjoyed reading. I have a few mostly minor suggestions for improvement.
- Something is wrong with the last sentence of the plot summary. It reads, "With Henry and Elizabeth flee."
- This sentence has three problems: "The script passed the Hays office review but James Whale, who by then had been attached to direct, opined that it '[stank] to high heaven'." The direct quote needs a citation right after the end of the sentence in which it appears. "Attached" seems like the wrong word to me. Perhaps "hired" or "engaged" or "recruited" would be better. I'd also recommend inserting a comma between "review" and "but".
- Quote referenced, comma inserted although I don't think it's necessary with the conjunction. "Attached" is a correct industry term to describe a performer's association with a project and honestly I find it more interesting than "hired" or what have you but if it goes to FAC and that's the sticking point I can certainly detach (heh) myself from it.
- In several places, I see problems with apposition. When you write "love interest Elizabeth" without commas around Elizabeth, it suggests that she wasn't the only love interest. On the other hand, "love interest, Elizabeth,... " means she was the only one. The same is true of "mentor Pretorius", "assistant Karl" and "hunchback Fritz". I think probably all of these should be set off in commas.
- Commas added everywhere. I don't find any of them necessary but I know how those FA reviewers do love their commas. ;-)
- Karloff is probably OK in all caps since that's how the ads displayed it, but I don't think the bolding meets Manual of Style guidelines.
- The last paragraph needs a source or sources.
- Karloff's single-name credit being customary at Universal is referenced but surely the film serves as reference for Lanchester's credit?
I see possibilities for expansion here. It would be interesting to know a little bit more about the cast. You've got some nice stuff in the Production section about Elsa Lanchester, and that's the kind of thing I'm thinking of. See Blade Runner and Jurassic Park to see what other editors have done to make the cast list more interesting. The interesting bit on the article's talk page about Colin Clive and the switch from Victor to Henry might fit nicely in an expanded cast section.
- Re the Victor/Henry switch, it was the result of Peggy Webling's swapping the names of two characters in her 1927 stage adaptation, so the note on the talk page about Clive's being built into a leading man (which as near as I can tell isn't true anyway as he was rather busy drinking himself to death) has nothing to do with the name. Otto4711 (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- When you say "Dwight Frye kills his uncle", I think you mean "Karl kills his uncle".
- You don't have to put the "US$" in front of the millions on second use.
- You should insert another citation for the Variety quotation that ends with "same breath as the actors and director". It's probably just another ref to citation 16, but you need to make that explicit.
- "In latter assignment she impresses quite highly" seems to be missing the word "the". I don't know whether the original was this way or if a word got lost in transcribing.
- Article reflects the review as written. Original review is linked through note for confirmation.
- MoS advises against starting sentences with digits. "100% of the thirty-eight reviews... " would be better as "All of the 38 reviews... ".
- I deleted the sentence. I never cared for having it to begin with.
- This sentence tries to do too much and would work better if re-written as two sentences: Specifically in response to the "majesty and power" reading, Harrington states "My opinion is that’s just pure bullshit. That’s a critical interpretation that has nothing to do with the original inspiration" and concluding "I think the closest you can come to a homosexual metaphor in his films is to identify that certain sort of camp humor."
- Broke into two sentences.
I thought of two other possibilities for expansion, though I wouldn't say they were necessary. (1) I was curious to know more about the lab equipment and special effects. (2) The sentence in the Plot section about Mary Shelley and the "moral lesson" of her novel made me curious about how the film and the novel might have coincided or differed on this and other points. I wondered if any of the critics had compared the two.
I hope these comments and 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) 22:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing the article. I agree with you that an expansion of the effects section would be beneficial. I haven't seen any material contrasting the "moral lesson" business from the film with Shelley's original intention; from what I gather that line was something of a sop to the Hays office (who were apparently more interested in monitoring Elsa's cleavage than her dialogue). I will also look around for some more casting information. In the meantime I've fixed up the stuff as noted above. Let me know if you have any other suggestion. Thanks again. Otto4711 (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)