Wikipedia:Peer review/Film/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Currently, the article is listed as a Good Article and is {{A-Class}} for the Films WikiProject. It seems to be a good article and it would be good for WP:FILMS if they got this article, kinda their "main article", featured. I'd like to know what can be done to make that happen. Thanks, Cbrown1023 23:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • No citations. For such a more-than-broadly covered topic, this is embarassing. Wiki-newbie 21:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think when a user comes to a page, they would expect to find a proper source. For example, when I buy a film book, I do like to flick to the back and see the bibliography and various citations. Wiki-newbie 11:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by a "proper source" or you talking about citation style or the sources themselves or something completely different? Cbrown1023 15:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I want inline citations simply. Wiki-newbie 09:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

But want needs citations? Do you see anything that actually needs them? It seems that they may not be needed according to WP:CITE. Cbrown1023 21:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 22:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Text:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[1]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. [2]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ See footnote
  2. ^ See footnote