Wikipedia:Peer review/Themes in Avatar/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Themes in Avatar[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its main editors suggested that it get a fresh overall feedback and possible suggestions for improvement before being proposed for GA.

Thanks, Cinosaur (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from haha169 (talk) 4:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Review by haha169

I have a few quick image suggestions.

  • Firstly, File:Avatarbulldozer2.JPG is rather blurry and you can't really discern much but a yellow machine and some foliage. I'm pretty sure there are better ones - I distinctly remember a still in my head of an obvious bulldozer object in the process of knocking down one of the trees.
    • Yes, I agree. Will keep on the lookout for a better still. Or if you run into it, I would appreciate a tipoff. Cinosaur (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Changed for a better quality image. See if you like it better now. Cinosaur (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, yes. That is exactly the image I had in my mind's eye. --haha169 (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I commend the wonderful attention to the captions that are given to each individual image. But the battle scene caption is short and awkward, and doesn't look like the image should even be part of the article.
    • Changed the caption to "Battle scenes in Avatar reminded critics of military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam." Is this any better now? I would like to keep this or any other similar military image in for illustrating the section. Cinosaur (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed for a better quality image. Cinosaur (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not so much the battle scenes but the battles themselves and the motivation behind it was what the critics compared to Iraq and Vietnam. I'm not sure if this is properly cited or if it violates WP:NPOV, so I hesitate to offer "imperialistic motives" as an alternate phrasing. --haha169 (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about this one: "Avatar's portrayal of the military operation on Pandora reminded critics of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam"? Cinosaur (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you'd be better off without "Avatar's portrayal". How about "The humans' military operations on Pandora reminded critics of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam"?
  • As for the 9/11 image; I believe the current image is satisfactory, but one in the process of falling would be a great addition. I don't think there is a free image of that on Wikipedia though, so the current one should probably stay.
    • May I ask you if this image will be any better? The one before did show the moment of the actual impact, but it was blurry and lacking perspective. Cinosaur (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the current one better than the one you propose, because it is closer, so it looks more like hometree. I agree that there is not an ideal one on Wikipedia (and I searched a lot!), but I think the one we have is the best one available. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and kept. Thanks for finding it. Cinosaur (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a slight problem with the new image. It is nonfree and there is no rationale for its inclusion in this article at the present time. --haha169 (talk) 05:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Sorry about that. I have now added a Fair Use rationale to the image for this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from DrNegative (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Review by DrNegative' - Per your request on my talk-page for a review, I read it over and a couple of minor things struck me.
  • From the lead, "Cameron has specifically mentioned intentional connections between the film's plot and the religious concepts and iconography of Hinduism."
Citation #10 on this statement makes no mention of this whatsoever, perhaps an error? Citation #9 simply states Cameron's explanation to the journalist the actual definition of the word "Avatar" before explaining what it actually meant in his film. The source never explicitly states any link whatsoever of Hinduism in relation to the film's plot or for the scope of this article, its themes. If it was only a concept, would that make it a theme (actual or underlying or implied)) within the film?
 Done Thanks for the correction. #10 had an extra '0' in the url, thus directing to the wrong page. Fixed. #9 appears to be not just his explanation for the word "Avatar", but how that primary meaning and concept behind it are used in the movie: "[Avatar]is an incarnation of one of the Hindu gods taking a flesh form. In this film what that means...". I added another source where Cameron acknowledges the connection more explicitly. Cinosaur (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A vast majority of this article is quotes. While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Too many quotes detract from the encyclopedic feel of Wikipedia. Although I know this is tough considering we are mentioning various personal "interpretations" of the themes that would border original research should we attempt suitable prose.
We did try reworking as many quotes as possible into simple prose without slipping into OR. If it is strongly felt that the quotes are still overused, I can try to reword them some more. Cinosaur (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DrN on this one. This is actually a very difficult task, I know, but if you could just convert one or two more quotes to a description of what the author's point was, that would help. One must, of course, be very careful to paraphrase or summarize very accurately and not try to interpret, too much, what the author said. I also think that a couple of the Cameron quotes could simply be deleted as redundant. You might even just keep the ref as a second ref to the remaining quote. You'll see that I previously commented that I thought some of your most recent additions of Cameron quotes were redundant. I know this is not easy. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your updated illustrations and captions all look great.
Thanks for helping with them in the first place. Cinosaur (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think that the section on Hinduism should be under the "Religion and Spirituality" heading. Also, currently the Hinduism section makes up about 15 of the article in terms of word count, but the actual religious theme clearly presented within the film was "Pantheism" yet does not receive such a broad treatment. Why not?
Because, unlike any other religious belief, Hinduism is the only religious connection in the movie repeatedly acknowledged by Cameron and joyfully picked up by the media. As for the other perceived religious connections, like pantheism, we had to draw on sources other than Cameron — and there are not so many of them, which explains the relative prominence of the Hinduism section. If it's felt that its treatment in the article is bordering on WP:UNDUE, I will think how to balance it — but I do not see how we can expand the pantheism share in the article. If you think that some significant comments on pantheism in Avatar are overlooked, please let me know. As for the placement, I tried placing it under Religion and spirituality in preview, and it Hinduism ends up outweighing and eclipsing the rest of the section, so I thought it would be better structurally and stylistically to leave it as it is — at the end of the article but under a heading of its own. Cinosaur (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is plenty about pantheism, but too much about Hinduism. As we discussed above, some of the quotes in this section seem repetitive and could be reduced to just the most important ones. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Tweaked, slightly shortened and shifted the Hinduism section under Religion and spirituality. Worked some of the quotes into sentences. Cinosaur (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, I think. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the lead could be expanded just a little more to better summarize the scope of the article's contents.
How would you suggest we expand it? By giving brief synopses of the themes? Cinosaur (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there should be, perhaps, one sentence about each of the major sections of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I took a shot at expanding it. Others can refine it further, I'm sure. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. Thanks, Ssilvers. Cinosaur (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why no mention of the film's love theme? Cameron calls it a "chick-flick" from his perspective and says in several interviews that disguising a movie for women as a movie for men (Love story within the main story-arc) was a key point to the success of this film and his prior film Titanic. This makes sense from a thematic standpoint. Why should it be excluded?
Again, as we discussed with you and others on the article's talk page here, I was considering to include the theme, but fell short of novel and reliable sources. If you have them, please go ahead and add the theme where it feels fit. Cinosaur (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just like with the "dream" section, I don't think the love story is a *Theme*. There is nothing to discuss about it in this article, except that Jake falls in love with Pocahontas... er, I mean, a native girl. And we've already discussed that. The fact that there is a love story is, IMO, adequately covered by the main article. -- Ssilvers (talk)
Just my thoughts on some things. The remainder of the article looks great and could more than likely pass a GA in my opinion. Good job. DrNegative (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for your input, DrNegative. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. Your welcome and good luck. :) DrNegative (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From a standpoint of structure, I think the article looks fabulous now. Also, the lead is much more engaging to the reader. I am really impressed. I think Ssilvers is right about the love theme now that I think about it. Nothing new about it other than it being between an alien and a human. I guess there is no reason to justify its inclusion so I will strike it out and consider all of my other points addressed and resolved. DrNegative (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]