Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1

Fuck (film)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Fuck (film) is a 2005 documentary film which analyzes the word fuck from a perspective of freedom of speech. The article is WP:GA quality and I'd appreciate help with any further ways to further along the quality improvement process. — Cirt (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comedy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Popular Culture, User talk:Cirt, User talk:Khazar2, User talk:Mwn3d. — Cirt (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Comments by Red Phoenix

Just some passing notes, as I'm looking at this:

"Music" section is a little short, and any expansion there to flesh out the paragraph might help. I feel it's also a little misleading; when it comes to songs and such used in a film, isn't the term "Soundtrack" more appropriate? Could use some more feedback from more experienced Wikipedians on this.
Reading the lead, it's a little unusual to have the second paragraph start with a comment on the music, but it's not really the main idea of that paragraph, nor is it a significant section of the article. Again, one solution here would be further expansion of the music section, or that sentence could be moved to the end of that paragraph and the sentence starting with the word "Filmmaker" would be a good start to the paragraph, and the music detail wouldn't be a bad way to end it, even if it is out of sequence a little bit.
In the home media section, the term "DVD" is used quite repetitively; can this be reduced to cut it down and make it an easier read?
Likewise in that section, the first "paragraph" isn't really a paragraph. Can this be reworked into the next paragraph and make it more substantial?
Otherwise it looks pretty good to me and I'd support it at FAC. I'm sure some other reviewers might have some more notes to throw in, though, and that's a good thing. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 16:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments by Red Phoenix

Retitled the Music section to Soundtrack.
Moved the sentences around in the 2nd paragraph of the lede. Moved the sentence starting with "Filmmaker" to be the first sentence of that paragraph.
Trimmed use of term "DVD" in Home media section.
Home media section - moved around info in the two paragraphs to have those two paragraphs be more of equal size.
Thanks very much for your support and encouragement and these helpful suggestions!

— Cirt (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Piotrus

I have only two technical concerns before a GA review:

too many see also entries
external links in further reading section

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a GA Review, it is a peer review but thanks, I'll address those in the next several hours. — Cirt (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments by Piotrus

This is not a GA Review but a Peer Review. This article already had a GA Review and was successfully reviewed and promoted to WP:GA quality.
I've trimmed entries from the See also sect.
I moved an external link from the Further reading sect to the External links sect.

Thank you for your helpful suggestions, — Cirt (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Rejectwater

I reviewed the article and found I have nothing constructive to add to the conversation. I don't understand why it isn't FA already. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Rejectwater (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your kind encouragement about this quality improvement project! — Cirt (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.