Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Peer review/2008

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pankh (film)[edit]

I want this article to be moved to B-class. Please share your review comments. "Legolas" (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Nailin' Paylin?[edit]

To my eyes, this article compares favorably to a number of GA-quality film articles. I'm unfamiliar with the ins and outs of entertainment-related articles, and would appreciate some feedback before I go through the GA process. Nyctonymous 00:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dracula's Daughter[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've expanded it a great deal over the last few days and believe that it is close to if not at good article status. I would appreciate review comments with an eye to leading to a successful GA nomination. Otto4711 (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Great work on this article! I have a few suggestions; some are pretty nitty-gritty but keep in mind I'm not a film person but a literary person.

  • In lead, first mention of Universal - My assumption is that "Universal" is a shortened version of the full name; why not say "Universal Studios"?
  • In plot summary, this may sound pedantic, but it does not say that Dracula's daughter was a vampire before she's trying to be cured of vampirism. For absolute clarity, and for boneheads like me, it might be worth being more explicit. Later in that paragraph, I'm not sure the word "mesmerizing" is accurate. See mesmerism. You may also want to break up the plot summary into two or three paragraph for easier readability. Towards the end, some of the sentences get a little long and hard to follow; you might want to break them up too.
  • The Production section could also be carved into a couple paragraphs and reorganized. I suggest, for exapmle, a paragraph right before "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer", and reserve that first paragraph for info on the source story, then go into the Universal vs. MGM thing. In fact, this is probably the only significant reorganization/rewriting I'd recommend. I don't think it's major but it would substantially improve things. The section is also severely low on citations. Maybe add a few more footnotes? A couple long, hard-to-follow sentences in this section too, notably: The script included scenes that implied that Dracula's daughter enjoyed torturing her male victims and that while under her control the men liked it too, along with shots of the Countess's chambers being stocked with whips and straps, which she would never use on-screen but whose uses the audience could imagine.
  • Director section starts with another overwhelmingly long sentence. This section is probably the best as far as citations so good work there.
  • Universal script section could use another footnote here and there if you can cite further.
  • The section on the lesbian overtones of the film was fascinating (I have yet to see another quote in a Wikipedia article along the lines of "impressive Euro-butch dyke bloodsucker")! It might be a bit weighty but it doesn't bother me. I'm not sure it's in the ideal order though; it's sort of sandwiched between Reception and Influence. On the Entertainment Weekly quote, it might be worth putting the date of that quote in the prose (I think we suddenly jumped a couple decades). Same thing with the Celluloid Closet film; it might need a date too. The other quotes seem okay ("reviewers of the day") but it's interesting to know the time differences. The second to last paragraph there is also only two sentences; typically, I recommend aiming for minimum of three per paragraph. Either split up a sentence (Maybe the last sentence could be "She is finally interrupted by the arrival of Dr. Garth" or something) or splice it back into the paragraph above.
  • Influence section is a bit short. I might suggest moving this into the reception section, possibly under the heading "Reception and influence" - with one exception, the note that it inspired homoerotic vampire fiction should definitely stay with the lesbianism section. It might solve my little question about the order of the Lesbian implications section.

I hope my notes have helped. Feel free to ignore ones you deem irrelevant. I think it has a good chance of passing GA status, especially once the long sentences are addressed. Good luck! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lion King[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because alot of work has gone into this article within the past several months and I am going to make my final attempt at getting this article to FAC status. Feel free to provide any suggestions that you may have and I will address them in a timely manner. I will leave the review open until the other major contributing editors that have helped me with this project all agree that it is ready for a FAC nomination.

Thanks, DrNegative (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement, looking at from an FAC viewpoint.

  • Lead should be expanded per WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
    • Expanded lead a little to include notes on reception and revenue since these were notable. DrNegative (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 8 fair use images - how does this meet WP:NFCC?
  • Article needs more references, for example When adjusted for inflation, however, it is the fourth top-grossing animated film (after Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, One Hundred and One Dalmatians and Fantasia). My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Some of the refs used seem like they might not meet WP:RS - for example IMDB is a problematic source in some cases, or what makes lionking.org a RS?
  • There are a fair number of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and also several short sections - can these be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve the article flow?
  • Songs as a bullet list seems choppy too - can it be made into prose (de-list-ified)?
  • The prose could stand some polish - can you find a copyeditor or print it out and read it out loud?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been cleaned up and polished, and I just want to know what everyone thinks of it after all this time it has been worked on.

Thanks, Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 02:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • A very nice article—I especially liked the plot section's prose. I did a readthough of the page and you may wish to review the changes. My only problems are with the "reception" section, to which I added a couple 'needs source' tags. "Despite an overwhelmingly positive viewing response, the same could not be said criticially." Okay, you have Metacritic and a bunch of "critical" reviews, so the latter part of the sentence is fine. But where is the first part backed up? You mention four reviews that were positive, but surely these do not represent the general public, nor are they written by less formal individuals than the negative reviews. And if a review is written by a fan and someone whose job is to professionally criticize television and/or film, does that not fail our guideline for reliable sources as self-published? I have not taken the time to review each source, but I am automatically skeptical of the credibility of the sources that do not have Wikipedia articles. Later, it says "The cameos by Quentin Tarantino and Kelly Osbourne received mixed to negative response" and you go on to talk about two reviews that commented on the cameos. Are these the "mixed to negative response"? If so, that introductory sentence should be removed. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks better after the changes, but there is still one more sourcing issue. Twice in the article, it says that it premiered to higher ratings than expected, but there is no citation to back up this claim. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is it? In the first paragraph of the reception section, one part reads "Despite a better-than-expected viewing response". What was who expecting? –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead should be expanded with a plot synopsis and details on reaction. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raging Bull[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to know if my contributions have been of any benefit.

Thanks, Kilnburn (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Fuchs

Images:

  • Too many fair use images; see WP:NFCC and FA-class film articles for examples of proper fair use rationales and of how to use nonfree images sparingly.

Layout and structure:

  • The plot section, at around 800-some words, is a tad long. It might be better to slim it down slightly.
  • If the cast section is just going to be a bland table, perhaps merge it with casting as seen in Alien (film)?
  • The article needs a thorough copyedit. In particular, the use of commas needs to be audited, for example: "A couple of years later, in the middle of a photo shoot, Jake LaMotta surrounded by his wife and children, tells the journalists he is officially retired and that he has bought a new property" should be "Years later Jake Lamotta, surrounded by his wife and children, tells the journalists he is officially retired and that he has bought a new property" for clarity, as well as not leaving clauses hanging.
  • I've never watched the film; is it in black and white? Otherwise its confusing to see everything in monochrome.
  • Issues with Manual of Style compliance: for example, no left-aligned images under level three headings (see Raging Bull#Principal photography
  • Another example of bad prose rendering the article incoherent: "However the events surrounding John Hinckley Jr's assassination attempt of Ronald Reagan trying to impress Jodie Foster the way that the character, Travis Bickle put his life on the line in the film Taxi Driver hurt the film's chances" --whaaa?
  • I'm concerned that information such as critical opinions and reception is sourced to books instead of the actual reviews themselves, and that much of the article is based on just two or three sources.

Overall, I think most of the content is there. But it needs major massaging and some reorganization. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a former FA candidate and I would like to see it reach FA status as soon as possible. I know there is some work to be done on the article, such as expanding the legacy section, reception and possibly creation of the film, as it's one of the most important horror films of all time. I am also open to any other suggestions for improving this article.

Thanks, EclipseSSD (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but the filming temperatures are only in the lead. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • References need work - they should follow punctuation (no space) so fix things like The low speed 16 mm film required four times more light than modern cameras. [3] The refs should be in numerical order, so fix things like ... due to the violent nature of the video game and sold poorly because many game stores refused to carry it.[62][60]
  • Avoid direct external links in the text - convert to refs (the two block quotes)
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. So fix things like current ref 13 which is now just "Gunnar Hansen FAQ". Retrieved on August 21, 2008." and needs a publisher - also what makes this a Reliable source? See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Look at some film FAs and use them as a model for ideas and examples to follow. I think this needs a copyedit to polish the prose.
  • Since this has had a FAC, look at that as a very detailed peer review and double check that all issues raised there have been addressed. Treat examples cited as just that (examples) and check that there are not more such problems. If you think everything is fixed, ask some of the FAC reviewers to please take a second look at the article.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meet the Parents[edit]

I started working on this article when it looked like this. Over the last five months and practically singlehandedly, I've expanded it to what it is today. I've yet to write a GA or an FA and I've decided to make this my first one of those but I would appreciate some help from editors more qualified than myself to tell me what looks good and what needs improvement. In its current state, I believe the article qualifies as a class B but, again, input would be appreciated.

Thank you! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Erik

Looks like you are off to a great start! Comparing the revisions, I appreciate the removal of the taglines, the expansion of the Plot section, and the addition of three substantial sections. With that said, here are some recommendations to continue improving the article:

  • The lead section, per WP:LEAD, serves as a concise overview of the article. With this said, I think that the Production section could detail the independent film that served as the basis of this 2000 film. I don't think it needs a lot of focus in the lead section; just move the details down. Also, the details about the awards could also find a place in the article body, since the lead section summarizes what's already there. You do not need to have citations in the lead section if the content is already cited in the article body (exceptions would be controversial statements, but this film shouldn't have an issue).
  • You may want to establish a specific fair use rationale for Image:Meettheparentsinter.jpg. Per WP:NFC, screenshots need to be paired with critical commentary and discussion of the film. The article does not show how the screenshot is significant at this point. May I suggest looking at my personal example, Fight Club, for how screenshots are tied into critical commentary?
  • For "Cast and characters", I think that you could cut back on some in-universe character details, like for Kevin Rawley, Debbie Byrnes, and Denny Byrnes. We try to minimize plot information, and anything important that takes place in the film can be covered in the Plot section.
  • I think that you could start "Critical reception" with the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic verdicts. You say that critics lauded it for its deadpan humor and subtlety but only cite two reviewers for this generalization. It might be considered weasel wording. That's why I suggest RT and MC for an "overall" verdict of the film. Another idea is to look for sources talking about Meet the Parents retrospectively (after the release year) and see how they perceived critics receiving the film. For example, for Fight Club, I cited a 2001 article that talked about how the film polarized critics when it first premiered.
  • In "Legacy", I think that you do not need to detail Meet the Fockers in this film's article. The detail can be moved to the sequel, and the information about Little Fockers could also go there since it follows that film.
  • I was wondering, do you feel that you have exhausted all possible resources to add information about this film? I noticed that all the citations used were online. There may be print sources such as newspapers, books, or academic journals that cover the film. Take a look at Google Books and Google Scholar. It can be a good idea to visit the library, either public or university, and explore newspaper databases or film periodicals from around this film's release date.

If you would like help with finding resources, just let me know. I'd be happy to do so. I have a few places I can look. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a possible academic journal to use, though it may be a little more appropriate for Meet the Fockers. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input, this is exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for. Let me recap what I have and what I haven't done as per your suggestions:
  • I've removed information about the 1992 film from the lead and placed it in the Production section although I have not yet elaborated on the issue (stay tuned :)). There is now an Awards section with most awards being removed from the lead except for the People's Choice award that I though might serve as a good overview of the film's reception with the viewers. What do you think about leaving it in the lead? If it's inapropriate, it can go.
  • Cast and characters has seen most of the in-universe character descriptions removed as well as the Critical reception being rid of weasel words and leading off with RT and MC scores.
  • I have not yet given a new rationale for that image so that it conforms to WP:NFC but I will shortly. I have also not yet removed any info on Meet the Fockers and Little Fockers because I don't want the film to lack any information that might be considered significant but I want to ask you if you think that writing too much on the two sequels might be considered borderline trivial? If that is the case, I will definitely cut down the amount of information on those two and transfer the rest to appropriate articles.
  • And, to answer your question, no, I definitely have not yet exhausted all of my available resources. I will have to make a trip to the library in the near future but I might also take you up on your offer for help on this issue.
Anyways, before I screw things up too much, let me know your opinion on whether my work today was somewhat along the lines of what you had in mind when you left those comments or if I've misinterpreted something and made things even worse.
Thanks again!
Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see the changes made! To respond to your comments, I think that you could be a little more general with mentioning awards in the lead section. Perhaps a sentence like, "Meet the Parents was nominated several comedy awards for the film and its actors' performances, winning awards like the People's Choice Award." A little rough, but you know what I mean. For the image, it may be tricky to find a good image. It may not wind up to be that one, perhaps. An idea is to find a comedic scene that two or three reviewers enjoyed and get a screenshot that would capture that moment for the "Critical reception" section. As for sequel information, I don't think that it is trivial, but Meet the Fockers looks like it could house that detail, being pretty sparse. You don't have to move everything completely, maybe have one or two sentences mentioning the follow-up and its continued box office performance despite weaker critical reception. Let me know what resources you find at the library -- I am pretty good at finding news articles from around the time Meet the Parents was released, so if you want a certain area explored, I can look into it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre[edit]

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a former FA candidate and I would like to see it reach FA status as soon as possible. I know there is some work to be done on the article, such as expanding the legacy section, reception and possibly creation of the film, as it's one of the most important horror films of all time. I am also open to any other suggestions for improving this article.

Thanks, --EclipseSSD (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get input before taking it to FAC in the future. This is only the second film article I've extensively worked on, so if someone sees something missing, tell me. I know the 'cast' section hasn't been completed, but if people could look over my prose that would be great too.

Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really like the article. I'd just suggest reducing the use of the words "positive" and "negative"; a thesaurus should yield a variety of synonyms appropriate for one place or another. LL&P Fg2 (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found these phrases odd: "which moved Spock's death further in the story"; "Reliant's engine nacelle's destruction"; "Complaints about the film focus on what was seen as the tepid battle sequences"; "focused on what critics felt was aged acting by the stars". DrKiernan (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you find odd about them? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prose-wise. "The destruction of the Reliant's engine nacelle" is easier to read than the double possessive. Similarly: "which moved Spock's death earlier in the story"; "Complaints about the film focus on battle sequences that were seen as tepid, and the age of the performers." DrKiernan (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I made modifications to the above phrases. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I found this to be generally quite well done, although I agree there are some places where the language could be smoothed a bit, as well as some places in Cast that need to expanded (Uhura). Here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Some references seem to be overused - for example in the William Shatner as James T. Kirk section, ref [3] is used three times in one paragraph without any direct quotes or intervening other refs. I think as long as everything in the paragraph can be attributed to the same source, one ref at the very end of the paragraph is fine.
  • Revealing my geekiness here - I recall seeing this film and thought it odd that Saavik (a female) is referred to as "Mr. Saavik", but later learned this is the proper address for a naval lieutenant - could this fit into the naval themes? I also thought it odd that Amazing Grace was played on the bagpipes for Spock's funeral - any commentary on this?
  • Problem sentence? should Besch and Shatner be possessive forms? Meyer stated that what he physically liked about Butrick was that his hair was blond like Besch['s ?] ([who played] the character's mother) but also curly like Shatner['s ?], making ...
  • Unclear whether the worldwide total includes the US total in Star Trek II grossed $78,912,963 in the U.S. and $97,000,000 worldwide.
  • Date linking is now generally deprecated but the dates in refs are all linked

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I was wondering about the 'Mr.' nomenclature too when watching, but there's no discussion about such specific themes in the special features or refs I've seen (ditto on the bagpipes, unfortunately, but I'll double check.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article discusses Spock's death a lot and I think it should go in the lead, considering it is the start of the story arc ending in The Voyage Home? I know we maintain a fine line between courtesy and common sense on the readers' part, but what's the use of not mentioning such a famous cliffhanger? Alientraveller (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not leaving it out as a spoiler; I just didn't think it was that big a deal. It's not really a cliffhanger, per say. If you think it's important I will try and add it in. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now that's sorted, I recommend:
  • Adding a few pictures, especially since I haven't seen the film in a while and therefore do not understand: "A scene taking place at Starfleet Academy, for example, used scenery in the foreground to give the sense of a larger set than was created. Instead of having operational elevators, walls were wheeled out of position while the lift doors were closed to give the illusion of moving between decks." Are we talking about forced perspective, or could you just show us this bit?
  • The themes like aging (a little bit is in the cast section) and vengeance? I looked at the Memory Alpha page and there's great quotes which I hope are on the DVD.
  • Who created the Kobiyashi-maru test?

Alientraveller (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could add a 'Themes' section using Meyer's commentary (I know some of the quotes were definitely on the DVD, others I'm not sure.) I'm 90% certain the Kobiyashi Maru test's creator is not noted, but I'll double check the text and audio commentary. Forced perspective is what we're talking about, so I'll link to that. I'll try to make the lift think clearer, because an image wouldn't really illustrate it that well either. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Started the section. I think more or less it has what we need, although I found a possible good source for the life/death part that I have to get off Interlibrary Loan. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juno (film)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has the potential to be a FA, but I think we could use some advice on clearing up defects in the article before proceeding with FAC.


Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from [[SriMesh | talk 01:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

  • Is the monetary amount $ American / $ Canadian dollar currency? $6.5 million - $60,016 - and etc...every time currency is mentioned
  • The infobox image is [[Wikipedia:Non-free content}Non-free content]] add the template described on Non-free use rationale guideline on the actual image description page for your article. Do this for every non free image being used in articles. This image has an example...Image:Bhagavad-Gitas.JPG Better yet use public domain images. Put in a request.
  • This entire section has no citations or references at all. Every fact needs a reference. Each paragraph should have 2 - 3 references minimum.
  • The film appeared on many critics' top ten lists of the best films of 2007:
  • Antifeminist --> Anti feminist screenwriting-->screen writing
  • Wikifiy the word blog
  • CDs should be spelled out the first time as compact discs and wikified abbreviation added in parenthesis if CD used again in article. And are they sound CDs or DVD CDs?
  • catalog is american spelling catalogue is british be consistent throughout article
  • Is cartoonized a word?
Thanks for the comments, I'll implement when I'm less tired. More comments, anyone?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Miller's Crossing[edit]

I am requesting this peer review in order to solicit opinions from the project about the cast section of the article, the content of which has been the subject of a dispute for some time now. I feel that the current "in-world" descriptions of the characters is inappropriate, unencyclopaedic, and misleading. I would like to hear the opinion of people involved in editing other film articles so that this matter can be settled. In general, this is a decent film article, but is in need of polishing. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll start, since I was the one who first added character descriptions. I'd like to get some sort of consensus or final ruling on whether "in world" character descriptions are allowed in Cast sections. Various featured articles have "in world" character info in them, including E.T., Jurassic Park, Latter Days, and Kung Fu Hustle, so I thought that it would be acceptable in Miller's Crossing. -Captain Crawdad (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Office Space[edit]

I been cleaning up this article quite a bit and feel that it is at least ready to be upgraded to B status but would like any comments, suggestions and/or help to upgrade this popular cult comedy to GA status. Thanks.--J.D. (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Batman Returns[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I need other feedback to get this to FA-status. I still need to add Tim Burton's DVD audio commentary, but I'm open to other suggestions. More importantly I probably should expand the lead section.

Thanks, Wildroot (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Article needs a copyedit to clean up the language - an FA criterion is a professional level of English, but just in the lead there are problem sentences like Burton originally did not want to direct a sequel because of his mixed emotions of the previous film - "because of his mixed emotions of the previous film" is not grammatical, or ditto for "caused parental backlash controversy." in Batman Returns was released with financial and critical success, but caused parental backlash controversy. The top section of WP:PRV has people willing to help with copyedits.
  • There are several places where the article needs to provide more context for the reader - for example in the Reaction subsection in the Reception section (Reaction is an odd name, by the way) there are many sentences like this Paul Dini enjoyed the characterization of Bruce Wayne. - while Paul Dini is wikilinked, there should also be a brief description of who he is - see WP:PCR A good example of this in the article is Batman comic book writer/artist Matt Wagner quoted, ... although "quoted" is an odd verb
  • Refs should be in numerical so fix examples like Raquel Welch, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Lena Olin, Ellen Barkin, Cher, Bridget Fonda and Susan Sarandon were then in competition for the role.[11][3]
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - see Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media for the FAs on films

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic (2000 film)[edit]

I have put a lot of work into cleaning up this article and beefing up the content in order to get it to GA status. The lead paragraph obviously needs work and the plot summary needs to be trimmed considerable. Any help and/or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.--J.D. (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes Without a Face[edit]

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

I've listed this article for review as i've done a lot of research for it and I can't think of anything more to add. I'd like to give it one quick peer review again before nominating for a GA. Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category 6: Day of Destruction[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone significant improvement in the last week or so, and I'd like to get feedback on how I can further improve it before I send it up for GA, and possible later FA.

Thanks, -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • I'd consider merging the last single-sentence para - this is a borderline case for two paras per WP:LEAD - the article is just over 15Kb but a few Kb will be markup...
  • ".. and a journalist and power officials attempt to find its cause." - maybe consider making it a bit more causal - so "leaving a journalist and power industry officials to..." (power officials - is that for real?)
  • Odd mismatch between it being a "miniseries" per opening sentence and subsequently a film per reviews later in the lead - perhaps it's typical for US miniseries, I'm not sure. Also I guess a "four hour miniseries" which lasts 174 mins (i.e. just less than three hours) is a typical US series? 72% movie, 28% advert?
  • "sweeps week " - what is this?
  • "films high budget" - I'm no king of apostrophe, but should that be "film's high budget"?
  • " is days away" - many days? thousands? two? you know what I mean?
  • "Concerned, and upset" - understatement consider Las Vegas has just been flattened, surely?
  • "Area 51 FX" - what is this? I assume a special effects company?

Otherwise GA material. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! First two items addressed. For the third, I fixed the terminology in the lead, and then later in the article noted film miniseries, since its basically both. It aired in a two two-hour blocks, and without commercials was 174 minutes, and yep, that's fairly typical. 10th Kingdom aired in a 10 hour block, but the actual film is just under 7 hours without the commercials. :) I wikified Sweeps week since I'm not sure how to summarize it in the lead without making the sentence odd (basically one of four times in a year when networks try to boost viewers, usually by doing season premieres or otherwise airing all new, hopefully highly desired content). Fixed items 6 and 7. For 8, he really was more pissed they missed it and wanted to make sure they didn't miss anymore weather. I reworded it to clarify that. Fixed the last item as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to be of help. GA will be a breeze, even if you have to wait two weeks! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny (film)[edit]

Expanded plot, reorganized, added links. Thank you, Shir-El too 14:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't comment too much as there is really only a start here; the "history" section appears to be unnecessary and could be incorporated in the lead. I can't put my finger on some references right now, but I have to think that there are lots of print sources that could be used. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Forget I asked! I'll just have to 'bum' around here some more till I get the hang of it. Thank you anyway. 'Bye, Shir-El too 21:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiki's Delivery Service[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it should become a good article again and I would like to know what else needs to be done to achieve that goal.

Thanks, CyberGhostface (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! This is a good film and deserves a nice looking article like this! Some quick suggestions.

In the plot section maybe it's not best to say "obviously inspired" even if it is, because that's kind of a odd way to put it. It sounds too unfactual. If you want to include it, perhaps it's best to state that strongly resembles it.

In the infobox, the flags should be gone as WP:FilmRelease suggests against it. I'll change them myself!

Try to put ciations that come around commas after the comma to increase readability.

The award section in release is a bit list-y. Perhaps it could be in a chart or expanded? These awards don't suggest what year they were given out or what's the notability of them.

The musical and differences form the book section need citations but are also pretty well integrated otherwise.

Good job overall! Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Boys from Baghdad High[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've just created this article and I would like to take it all the way to FA status. But let's concentrating on working on GA first :) Any suggestions or comments you have are much appreciated.

Thanks, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. One of my concerns, which I should have put above I guess, is whether or not the article needs a cast section and a plot section (though as a non-fiction piece, would it be called plot?) The article assessment from WP:FILM says so, but I'm not too sure. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • There seems to be too much empahsis in the lead on the producers etc. (the second paragraph) compared to the amount of text in the article itself WP:WEIGHT
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • I think the direct quotes from reviews in the lead need to be cited - see WP:LEAD and WP:MOSQUOTE
  • I do think a "Summary" section (plot) would be useful. Agree that calling it "Plot" seems odd though.
  • Also think a Cast section would help.
  • There are a few typos I saw - I read for comprehension, not proofreading. Here is a rough sentence When the documentary aired in the UK, overnight viewing figures showed that it was watched by 600,000 viewers, and by 3% of the total television audience.[27] I would say something like ... 600,000 viewers, which was 3 percent ... You can ask for a copyedit at WP:PRV
  • I do not review film GAs, but this seems pretty good for GA to me - well cited, mostly well written.
  • There were a few places that seem to be needlessly repetitious, alhtough they may be for emphasis - the camera may be taken as a sign the owner is a terrorist, for example.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007 film)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive advice on how to further improve it before nominating it for FA. Criticism and comments would be most appreciated.

Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 05:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Try adding info from the special features of the 2-disc special edition. If you have it. If not maybe I might help. I worked a little bit on that article around early-December (added some of those internet links alongside User:Alientraveller and User:Erik. You could get their opinion as well. —Wildroot (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I don't own anything of the special edition, so I can't be of assistance with that, but maybe you could add information if you have it. Cheers, —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 22:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Not to mention the plot section could be trimmed down a lot. There's also Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (ISBN 1845767047) that includes some in-depth making of the movie. More info might there. Could list that in a "Further Reading" section.—Wildroot (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as for the plot section, there's not much we could do about that; I already trimmed it down a bit (and so did EyeSerene), but although it exceeds the 900 word rule it seems to be allowable by WP:FilmPlot because the plot is somewhat more complex than others. However, if you can find a way to trim it down (we can't) without omitting major points in the sypnosis, please do!
As for the ISBN source, I'll try and incorporate that when I get the time. Thanks for the assistance. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 18:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I brought the plot section to six paragraphs. Not really finished yet. Didn't take too long. I'm somewhat busy trying to get Tim Burton's Batman to FA status. Two Burton films to FA status in the same month. That would be amazing.—Wildroot (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I brought the plot down to four paragraphs, but you guys might one to check because I might have made an itty bitty mistake. —Wildroot (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few tweaks to clarify some of the plot points. Thanks for your help ;) EyeSerenetalk 16:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Seems pretty good to me. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Watch overlinking - for example Mrs. Lovett is linked twice in just the lead.
  • In the cast section about Depp's character, there is a direct quotation without a ref (and a citation needed tag). I did not see any other missing refs, but my rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • The first two paragraphs of the Release section are both quite short - any reason they could not be combined?
  • Since there is so much discussion of Depp and Bonham-Carter's singing, would it help to include a brief sound clip, perhaps of a duet by them?
  • Watch odd language - tonsorial adornment??

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ruhrfisch. I've addressed a couple of the above points. However, with the various plot section revisions, we seem to have lost some information. Someone who knows the plot needs to take a look at the beggar woman's role; we can't just have her corpse appearing from nowhere in the final paragraph ;) EyeSerenetalk 08:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Bzuk comments Since I have had the article on my watchlist for awhile, I have noted a lot of improvements. Some minor points to consider:

  1. Date format: December 21 2007 is written either December 21, 2007 or 21 December 2007. Note the use of commas. There are also at least two different date formats in use. For consistency, a single format is preferred.
  2. Wikilinking: Note that actors do not need to be constantly wikilinked, e.g. Johnny Depp (among others) is wikilinked four times in succession, where the first or possibly second mention is all that is needed.
  3. Citations: All publishers, whether book, new media or journal should be identified in italics, all title of works in quotation marks. Even though titles and pssages are often copied "as is", the use of all caps is deprecated.
  4. Common words: The use of wikilinking should only apply to what the reader would not normally understand or need to know in order to understand context, see "grooming", "propose" and "waltz" among others.
  5. Section formatting: The cast section could also have been written in a different way as cast-character precis. Where there is a large amount of information regarding a particular cast member that could be established as a secondary passage/paragraph at the conclusion of the cast section. The last templates should be reversed with the navigation templates to Tim Burton and Stephen Sondheim musicals appearing last.

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 19:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much Bzuk and Ealdgyth. I'll get to work on these issues over the next few days. EyeSerenetalk 08:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Five Heartbeats[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the quality of this article has recently significantly improved and the article was previously assessed as stub class. The article appears to meet the criteria for a B article, however I would appreciate a second opinion.

Thanks, UniversalBread (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Done

Done

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 0Nl, use 0 Nl, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 0&nbsp;Nl.[?]

Done

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]

Done

Done

  • The script has spotted the following contractions: wasn't, wasn't, Haven't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.

Done

  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.[?]

Done

UniversalBread (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Batman (1989 film)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see other editors feedback to get this article to FA status. I've worked hard on this article (obviously) and have brought it up to GA status. I've used up all links I could find (books, magazine articles, websites, etc.) to get great info for Batman. I have very few things to look at (such as DVD special features). Anyway I need your opinion. Should I add any "Themes" or pictures or what?

Thanks, Wildroot (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments-Good article (obviously). Here's how you can make it an FA (very brief and shallow runthrough):

  • Expand the stubby, one-sentence paragraphs or combine them with others (I'm talking about the legacy section).
  • Is there any reason that the ISBN of Batman: Strange Application is included in the body of the text?
  • "In the late 1970s, Batman's popularity was waning." I don't like to be the verification police for every single statement, but according to whom or what statistic was Batman's popularity waning?

I'll have more comments later. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. I tend to include the ISBN of a book/novel/comic book if it doesn't have its own Wikipedia article. I don't really know why I do that. Producer Michael Uslan made that comment of Batman's popularity waning in the late 1970s. I will get to work on the Legacy section. —Wildroot (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you provide a source in the article thay verifies that Michael Ulsan says that quote?
  • "The film would eventually gross $251.2 million in North America and $160,160,000 in foreign countries, coming at a total of $411.35 million." Make all numbers written in the same format. Also, "coming at a total of" can be shortened to "totaling".
  • "To compose the film score Burton opted to hire Danny Elfman, his collaborator on Pee-wee's Big Adventure and Beetlejuice." A simpler sentence would be:"Burton hired Danny Elfman, his collaborator on Pee-wee's Big Adventure and Beetlejuice, to compose the film score." In general, the text needs a thorough copyedit before FAC. To me, the most pressing problems are awkward sentence structures and redundant wording.
  • Ideas for images include: props, behind-the-scenes pictures, film posters, and pictures of cast members.
  • Fix overlinking (mostly words and phrases linked multiple times). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Matthewedwards (talk · contribs)
  • I just wanted to leave a comment here that if you're interested I have a People Weekly from July 3 1989 with a review of the movie and an article about the Hollywood Premiere. Leave me a note on my talk page and I will either email you the stories or paste lines into the article's talk page.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bzuk Comments Overall, the article reads well, and my comments are to address mainly minor points:

  1. Referencing: The use of APA (American Psychological Association) style is used but with some inaccurate notations. Author is written as last name, first name with second and following authors/editors appearing as first name, last name. ISBN is a book identification code for booksellers and is not used normally in a citation. Citations should include Author, date and page number in sequence, followed by a full stop.
  2. Minor spelling, grammar: The phrase, "over the tone and direction the film was going in" could be written as "over the tone and direction in which the film was going." The phrase, "but Englehart had mixed emotions with his work" could be "but Englehart had mixed emotions in regards to (in respect to, over) his work." The phrase, "The car was built upon a Chevrolet Impala" could be "The car was built on a Chevrolet Impala chassis." The one use of foot is most often written as "a 38-ft (12 m) model." Note there is a mix of two different quotation styles.

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 19:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Army of Darkness[edit]

This film is a much beloved cult film and I've put a lot of work updating the Production and Reception sections with content and citations and tried to remove unsourced sections but I would like any more suggestions, comments or contributions to help upgrade this film to GA status.--J.D. (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some initial thoughts:

  • The lead sentence is overly occupied with the alternative titles the film has had, and I think that it could be relegated later in the lead section, perhaps in relation to its release.
  • The Plot section should lead with mentioning the first two films before delving into how their content relates to the third films. (Also, "discovered" should be "discovers", considering that they're all fictional works.)
  • I think that the Production section and its subsections could have more introductory sentences. For example, starting with, "Plans to make a third Evil Dead film had been circulating for a number of years..." deprives the reader of the context of previous films. I think it's important to have these sections be as stand-alone as possible, so there are no assumptions to what the readers know.
  • It may be worth combining the subsections in "Reception" since "Box office performance" and "Awards" are sparse. Also, is there a plan to add more reviews?
  • Quotations need to be fixed per WP:PUNC; follow the examples at the link.
  • "Awards" details could use citations.
  • "Director's Cut" could also use citations identifying the different versions on DVD (using {{cite video}}, perhaps). Some language, like "...it is actually the International Cut of the film..." seems a little too casual.
  • In "Comics", do we need to list all these adaptations when there's a separate article covering all of them?
  • There is no information about this film being known as a cult film. Such knowledge may not be obvious to all readers, and it should be supported in this article.

These are just the recommended broad strokes for the article. There may be some copy-editing needed. I can help with that if you wish, and also possibly see about other available references. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of these suggestion! I will go through them all soon. And, by all means, any way you can contribute would be greatly appreciated.--J.D. (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Is there a reason that there is no "cast section"? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delicatessen (film)[edit]

I think this article has now reached 'Start' class, but I'd like to know where to go from here. Specifically, I'ld like to know where to get information about this specific film from. I've searched in Google and all I get are reviews. I've seen other pages, like Jaws, etc. and their references are articles written at the time of the movie's release, giving information. I don't know where to find that kind of stuff about a film like this that's not that well known and released 17 years ago. Help appreciated. - Dalta (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to have access to a public library or a university's library resources? I take advantage of my university's library resources a lot. You're not going to find a lot of information on Google for an older film that wasn't widely known (as opposed to Blade Runner or Casablanca), so you may find more information in print. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some cinematography resources to get you started: Peter Ettedgui's Cinematography Screencraft has a section on Darius Khondji, while Alex Ballinger's New Cinematographers not only has a section on him, but several pages within that totally devoted to his work on Delicatessen. These two books will mainly cover shooting techniques, styles, and influences, and there are a few general anecdotes of interest regarding the shooting. You may also be able to find some fair usage for a few of the images from these pages; they include notebooks of storyboards and test stills. See also Elizabeth Ezra's new book on Jeunet, and it might be worth looking at some of the key crew members' subsequent interviews to see if they discuss Delicatessen at least by dint of comparison, if not in depth. In any case, it's a good place to start! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may also want to look at the format used, including "Plot", "Production" and "Cast" sections in an appropriate order. Quoting from the reference sources cited above will also be important. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Toy Story[edit]

I'm trying to make this article a GA (and, in the long run, a FA). Some other editors and I have edited it extensively, and would like some input as to whether it will be ready for a GA nomination anytime soon, and what we need to do to prepare it for GA-status. Any input or suggestions would be much appreciated. Thanks! SunDragon34 (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Of course, I would love to know anything we could do to prepare it for FA, as well.) SunDragon34 (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also interested in knowing how we can expand the article in the places it needs work on. (I already know the history section needs work.) SunDragon34 (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gran2[edit]

To get this to GA, then FA, would be a great achievement, with this probably being one of the most important films ever made.

  • On quick inspection, this article needs a lot of work, so I'll give some pointers, both minor and big.
Infobox
 Fixed SunDragon34 (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The runtime only needs to be given in minutes, so just "81 minutes" is fine.
 Fixed SunDragon34 (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The budget lacks a source.
 Fixed SunDragon34 (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gross revenue does not to include "Domestic" - America is not more important than the rest of the world ;). The worldwide figure is fine on is own.
 Fixed SunDragon34 (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plot
  • It's nice to see a plot which is not overly long.
  • As you have a cast section, I personally see no point in including bracketed cast names in the plot. But this is a personal preference.
  • If you do include them, then you need to include the actor for every character, not just Woody and Buzz.
Production
  • As you say yourself, this is lacking. There needs to be a huge amount more information here, about the development, writing, casting, animating and whatever. This is the part that needs the most work. Everything here needs to be sourced.
Cast
  • Should preferably be renamed "Cast and characters".
 Fixed SunDragon34 (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can incorporate casting info into this section.
  • The "Additional voices" section seems a bit trivial. Maybe mention that Ranft, Stanton and Penn Jillette have cameos in a sentence or two?
Terminated. :-) I reduced it to a sentence.
Reception and rest
  • This is another big one. The reception needs to be expanded with more reviews, box-office info, and the awards should be in prose.
  • I think there certainly needs to be a section on the films influence on cinema. It was the first CGI film, so this is very important. This is also where you can mention the sequels.
  • Because it's such an important film, some sort of analysis or themes section would be good as well.
  • Very minor point - the Joss Whedon template should probably be below the other two. The Toy Story and Pixar templates are more important.
 Done SunDragon34 (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, the main thing the article needs is expansion. If you don't already have it, you should consider getting the special edition DVD, which I'm sure will contain plenty of information. Also, there are bound to have been multiple books and articles written about the film, so that might be worth looking into. Good luck, Gran2 08:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cliff smith[edit]

I might be echoing Gran here and there, but when it comes to comments and suggestions, I go by the phrase "the more the merrier".

Lead
  • List all contributing writers, not "Joss Whedon et al.", that doesn't cut it.
 Done I listed the names of all four screenplay writers. SunDragon34 (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it's supposed to summarize the article to some extent, I don't know if one critic's quote would be appropriate. It's right after a good summary sentence on the film's critical reception anyway, so it (the quote) can probably just go.
 Fixed SunDragon34 (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Production
  • Needed improvements are pretty obvious (i.e. expansion, referencing, copyedit thereafter, et cetera).
  • Unless there was something special about the direction, it won't need its own subsection. Might want to check out the film MOS for guidance.
 Done SunDragon34 (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same thing with "Technological innovation/achievements". Actually, that will end up under Influence.
 Done SunDragon34 (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cast and characters
  • Info on casting could be incorporated here.
  • "Additional voices" seems questionable to me. I second Gran's suggestion to include cameos only; maybe we could get a short paragraph out of that.
 Fixed SunDragon34 (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crew
  • Loads of unnecessary bolding (i.e. none of it should be bolded).
 Fixed SunDragon34 (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice to see it in prose, if not incorporated into Production altogether.
 Fixed Most of it was redundant anyway; it was already in the infobox, so I got rid of a lot of it. SunDragon34 (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In popular culture
  • Can we say trivia? Personally, I doubt that any of it is worth keeping, especially since it's unreferenced.
 Fixed I moved a couple of things, but we'll get rid of it or incorporate it as those sections develop. SunDragon34 (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Real-world toys that appear in Toy Story
  • This is somewhat questionable to me as well; it's unreferenced anyway.
Release
  • Should be prose and needs refs.
  • "Video games" and "Computer software" don't need their own subsections; they should be made into one prose paragraph.
Reception
  • Echo—it needs expansion.
  • Another echo—Awards should be in prose; subsectioning for each award ceremony is unnecessary.
 Fixed SunDragon34 (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Echo again—an Influence subsection is a great idea.
Music
  • I'd rename it Soundtrack. Needs at least a sentence on the composer and when it was released.
Sequels
  • Like Gran suggested, this should be incorporated into Influence.
See also
  • Move the character list link to Cast and characters, and the rest will probably end up in Influence somewhere.

So, overall, the medicine this page needs is referencing and expansion. One last echo—the special edition DVD is always an indispensible source for an film's article. The commentaries alone may end up referencing Production. Best of luck, Cliff smith (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Bzuk[edit]

  • Very minor point but dates in month year convention are written out as "January 2000," rather than "January, 2000."
  • Dates are now routinely being de-linked, as autodatelinking is not mandated any longer. January 2, 2000 would now be written as January 2, 2000. See: talk page about Dates.
  • Two terms are still"redlinked."
  • "Old-fashioned" and "top-grossing" are not hyphenated.
 Fixed ~SunDragon34 (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace "-" with "–" as dashes.
 Done ~SunDragon34 (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reduce the number of common words that are wikilinked, e.g. "puppy".
  • Punctuation falls inside quotation marks, e.g. "space toy", should be "space toy,".
  • Remove extraneous white spaces, (extra blank lines) as the Wikipedia format takes care of that.

That's all for now, on a quick perusal. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Quick comments from Dalejenkins[edit]

  • More references from reliable sources are needed.
  • "Toy Story 3 is already slated to open on 18 June 2010" is a colloquialism, try "...is scheduled for release on 18 June 2010" instead?
 Fixed SunDragon34 (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A merchandise section is needed
  • The soundtrack section needs a brief few sentences, not just a wikilink.
  • Some dead wikilinks (like Toy Story Racer).
 Fixed SunDragon34 (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn the awards section into a table, adding reliable sources.
 Fixed I converted it to prose. SunDragon34 (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of Halloween costumes in the lead is not needed, just "costumes" as they can be worn at any time of year.
 Fixed SunDragon34 (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck, Dalejenkins | 13:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lion King[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been up for a "featured article" nomination several times and has been denied. I have extensive knowledge of this movie and its production and I would like to help this article achieve its goal of a "featured article".

I have been looking over the Talk page and I noticed many submissions and clean-up has been done since this article was last nominated.

What I really want is more input from other editors as to how we can improve this article. I believe it really stands out, but Im sure it could use some minor work to top it off.

Let us know what you think guys.


Thanks, DrNegative (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lion King copyedit[edit]

No problem on the copyedit—I'm just finishing up a couple other projects. I should be able to get started right away, but you probably won't see any edits until tomorrow. Today will just be analysis and note-taking. I look forward to seeing The Lion King pass its FA review. --AnnaFrance (talk — blunders) 14:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review part 1 - Issues largely resolved, Sillyfolkboy
    • Is there a need to bold the actors who voiced the characters in the list section?
    • Ensure all corresponding instances of The Lion King are correctly placed in italics.
      • Double checked article and replaced 2 instances of this that I could find. DrNegative (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lead
      • Do you have a source which confirms that the idea "Disney Renaissance" exists and that this movie is a part of it?
        • Removed this statement until we can verify that the Renaissance actually exist. DrNegative (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you explain how Bambi influenced The Lion King?
    • Production
      • "The Lion King was once considered a secondary project to Pocahontas, both of which were in production at the same time" both of is redundant here.
      • "This animated film was created and recorded at a studio in Burbank, California." Source? Also, "This animated film" is a little clumsy.
        • Fixed and added more info to its production locations. Cited info. DrNegative (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No caps needed for "chief operating officer". Also, any sources for his death and the tribute statement?
      • I seem to remember that the extensive use of 3D animation (especially the wildebeest scene) was significant at the time; was this the first time it was used in a feature length Disney cartoon (or similar)?
    • Reaction
      • I think the Rotten Tomatoes currently 92% info will date quickly. Can this be framed an alternate way? e.g. Scored/scores very highly on the Rotten Tomatoes scale?
      • I think "Mixed reaction" seems to overstate the fact that it was criticised. Should state something like: Lion King was praised and given a "thumbs up" but was said to be not on par with B&B, stating it was "a good film not a great one" Or something to that effect.
        • Added to existing reviews and clarified a little. Could still use more input. DrNegative (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps a couple more reviews could help here, or expansion of currently cited ones: e.g. why was Lion King an "almost daunting achievement"? What was the reasoning behind this comment?
    • Box office
      • Is the initial gross needed in the box? After all, this is fully explained in the following passage. Do any other films only rank on initial box office sales or something?
        • Removed initial gross from box since its explained in following paragraph. DrNegative (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Source for "fourth highest grossing animated film"? Also - how can this be the fourth top grossing animated feature film AND the most successful animated feature film? Which is it?
        • Re-did wording and clarified. Added a source. DrNegative (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Awards
      • Perhaps have an introductory statement in the section - explaining what parts of the film were most critically acclaimed (i.e. best animated film awards and music awards - esp. "Can you Feel the Love Tonight" by EJ and TR). Then follow with the list.
      • Convert bare external links in the list section into references.
      • Change American Film Institute award to a listing type to fit in with style (i.e. remove prose).
        • Edited and moved to reaction section since it was a poll. DrNegative (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Music
      • Why are the songs bolded?
      • In the Disney compilations is it really key information to say which disc they feature? Just say they are on the compilation collection.
        • Edited and moved to different section more appropiate. DrNegative (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • List a couple of awards or critical remarks about the soundtrack - don't over do the info, it should summarise the main article.
        • Added detail of success on Billboard chart. DrNegative (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sources needed for 1st and 3rd paragraphs of "Sequels and spin-offs". 2nd para is self evident really so that's fine.
      • "The Platinum Edition of The Lion King was criticized by fans mainly for its false advertising" Mainly is redundant here as no other criticism is listed.
      • Expand CES 2008 to the Consumer Electronics Show 2008.

That's enough to work with for now.

If these problems are all dealt with I may post more suggestions to improve the article.

If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.

Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Parts 2[edit]

  • Characters
    • I'd rephrase the sentence about the voicings of Simba while singing. It's not too clear that Joseph Williams was his adult singing voice. Try something like Simba's singing parts demanded further voice actors, Jason Weaver furnishing him with a singing voice as a cub, and Joseph Williams as an adult
    • A bit nit picky but - Do we have any proof that Scar's scar is a battle wound? I can't remember him explaining its origin in the film. Maybe try "named for his disfiguring wound"?
    • For the hyenas - the phrase "second-in-commands" is a bit clunky - can you find a better phrasing for this?
  • Production
    • Try adding this citation for the bambi animal study info.
    • "Using computers helped the filmmakers present their vision in new ways." I would rephrase this as "The use of computers..."
    • Add wikilink to "Be Prepared" song
    • Can we have a cite for the Pocahontas gross for comparison? Only rotten tomatoes reviews are linked in the final sentence.
  • Reaction
    • I would change the AFI list to "10 Top 10", as a quotation from the source.
    • More citation will be needed for the "box office performance" figures - those numbers must be coming from somewhere (or does the worldwide citation cover them all?
    • "The Lion King held the record for the most successful animated feature film in history" - Note how "in history" is redundant - maybe rephrase as "LK was the most successful animated feature film until..."
    • Also, does this mean highest grossing or something else here? Just "successful" is a little ambiguous. If it is grossing; start the inflation sentence with However, when adjusted for inflation....
  • Soundtrack
    • The final sentence refers to a bootleg of the score with extra material that didn't make the official release. Maybe this should be made clear, like: "A bootleg release entitled Lion King (Expanded Score - no FX) featured unreleased instrumental material from Hans Zimmer's original score". Their appearance on EBay is not so important as I think this happens with most bootleg releases from time to time. Plus, the phrase "long lost" is a little untrue as Disney probably had it in their archives all this time anyway.
  • Spin offs
    • "Also debuted in 1995 was a spin-off television series called The Lion King's Timon and Pumbaa which focused on the titular meerkat and warthog duo in a more modern, human world than the film's" Rephrase to "A spin-off television series called The Lion King's Timon and Pumbaa, which focused on the titular meerkat and warthog duo in a more modern, human world than the film's, also debuted in 1995"
    • Any wikilinks for the characters Kiara and Kovu?
    • "perspective of Timon and Pumbaa as well as some background on these two characters" Rephrase to "perspective of Timon and Pumbaa and providing background on the duo."
    • The final paragraph here seems to be in bits and pieces - can this be rewritten too?
  • Home video
    • Wikilink lithograph and epigraph and Dolby 5.1 (Disney Theater mix if possible).
  • Musical
    • Try summarising a little of the info in the main article - e.g. worldwide productions, featuring actors in animal costumes, uses songs from the soundtrack, some changes to scene/plot/character and finding citations for the Tony awards. No need to go overboard here though, just a short paragraph.
      • Added short paragraph with a little more info. DrNegative (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Controversies
    • "Other parallels include that most characters in Kimba have an analogue in The Lion King and that various individual scenes are nearly identical in composition and camera angle." Any proof of this?
    • "Early production artwork on the film's Platinum Edition DVD even depicts a white lion, but later it was found to be Taka, a lion that was to be in the film but was cut short (Taka was later revealed to have been Scar's birth name)." Split into two sentences and align citation.
  • Video Games
    • "The NES version, however, was only released in Europe, and was not identical to the SNES version." This is a little strange because I imagine all of these games are slightly different from each other anyway - I know the SNES and genesis versions are a bit different from first hand experience. Perhaps reduce this to the fact that the NES version was a Europe only release(?)
    • Is the second game based on this movie or a later sequel?
    • Find citations for the kingdom hearts info - I'm sure there are plenty of game reviews that might mention this kind of thing.
    • This looks like original research and should be removed: "Zazu is absent from the game entirely, though this may be to prevent any confusion between zazu and a disguised Donald Duck (Donald is disguised as a zazu-like bird in the level)"
  • Template
    • Is the template listing The Lion King as an adaptation of Hamlet really necessary? Maybe expand the info on the connection between the two to justify this.
  • References
    • Please be aware - All references to IMDB will be challenged at FA - There are suggestions that it is an insider wiki and it is not always reliable.
    • When listing a publisher only books, journals, periodicals and newspapers (such as International Herald Tribune) should be in italics. Websites such as Rotten Tomatoes and BBC should be left in plain script.
    • Try wikilinking publishers where possible - Though this is more of a matter of style than policy.
    • Ensure all dates are listed for links that have publication dates (and authors where possible).
    • Refs 35 to 40 will also be questioned at FA - "Be Prepared"...to find new ones :)

That's it. I hope these suggestions were helpful. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a good article. I need to at least get this up to FA status. It is one of the best articles on Wikipedia in my opinion. Any feedback on how to improve it shall be very much appreciated.


Thanks, Greg Jones II 23:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Is "also" really needed in John Hurt and Jim Broadbent also play fellow academics.
  • Unclear who the three men are in Screenwriters Jeb Stuart, Jeffrey Boam, Frank Darabont and Jeff Nathanson wrote drafts, before David Koepp's script satisfied all three men.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but critical reception and box office is not. Please see WP:LEAD
  • I also think the lead goes into too much detail on the secrecy issues.
  • In the Box office section, I would make it clearer what the date for the box office receipts is.

That's a start - hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs Bunny[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd really like to work on bringing this article up to Good Article status. A little work has been done already, but any suggestions, ideas, comments, and advice would really be appreciated. Thanks, Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bibliography does not use a consistent format. Fixed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks! Nice work. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you could link to the article for Bugs Bunny's actual biography instead of the one for the term "biography", or at least give the name of the biography. It would make the second paragraph in the lead section a lot clearer--seeing that link for biography confused me, as I don't know what Bugs Bunny's biography is. SunDragon34 (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; the "biography" in question is Joe Adamson's Bugs Bunny: 50 Years and Only One Grey Hare. I'll give the title of the book and then add the appropriate cite. Thanks for the suggestion. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 14:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs)

Who doesn't love Bugs? This is a great article to want to bring to GA, so I definitely applaud your effort. Some ideas/suggestions:

  • More citations are definitely needed. The works listed under "Bibliography" are not used as actual sources, so it should be renamed "Further reading". However, it would be fantastic if these works could be used as sources. Is that possible?
    • — Doing I'm starting to add citations using the works cited under "Bibliography", but it'll take some time. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All citations should be formatted correctly as per WP:CITE. Some of the cites are currently missing pertinent information such as author, publisher and access date. See WP:CITET for examples of templates; they aren't mandatory but are very helpful.
  • The category "Fictional characters from Brooklyn" does not exist.
    • — Done Fixed.
  • Remember to keep in mind WP:LEAD, which states that the lead section is supposed to be an overview of the entire article. There are currently several things (Bugs Bunny's accent is a Flatbush accent, for example) that only appear in the lead. This should be fixed.
  • "Voice actors" should be converted to prose. I also want to know more about these actors, how they took on a role made famous by Blanc, what critics have to say about their performances, etc.
  • "Current popularity" seems trivial in places and should also be converted to prose. How about strengthening the section on Bugs' legacy, but in popular culture as well as in animation and comedy?

I hope this helped! If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact me via my talk page. María (habla conmigo) 13:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the suggestions — it's a huge help! Referencing is definitely topping my list of priorities right now. The books listed under "Bibliography" should come in handy. Thanks again! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 15:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10 Things I Hate About You[edit]

It looks more than simply a "start" article, after all, me and some other random users have been adding on to it. Looking for review from film project editors on how to potentially decrease the amount of plot spoilers in summary and characters sections, as well as anything else you want to comment on or have problems with about the article. Also needs somebody to review the "criteria met" parameters in the film project banner. chantessy 13:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cliff smith[edit]

Lead
  • Apart from the run-on last sentence, it seems fine to me.
Premise and Plot summary
Characters
  • Should be Actor as Character: info on character.
  • Casting details would be ideal.
Shakespearean references
Production
  • IMDB is of questionable reliability so it shouldn't be used as a source.
  • There shouldn't be any boldface text here.
  • It needs some general expansion (e.g. info on the writing of the screenplay).
Reception
  • Every date and basically every number (i.e. box office grosses) needs to be referenced.
  • Critical reaction should be expanded.
  • Awards and nominations needs to be referenced.
Soundtrack
  • Ought to have at least a sentence about the composer and the date it was released.
See also
  • Since the film is a loose adaptation of Taming of the Shrew, it's already linked multiple times throughout the article, so having a See also section with that link alone is somewhat redundant. If anything, She's the Man, O, and perhaps Clueless should be under See also.

Overall, more references and more info on the film's development and its critical reception are needed. Cliff smith (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updates to the article[edit]

  • I updated the lead to change that last run-on sentence.
  • Completely revamped the plot summary; down to (I think) 699 words.
  • Formatted the character section appropriately.
  • Linked the box office numbers to the boxofficemojo.com numbers as a reference.

Somanytictoc (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Usual Suspects[edit]

I've been working hard on improving this article as I feel it is an important film. I would welcome any suggestions, comments and help to improve it in the hopes of getting it promoted to GA status. Right now, the obvious improvements are editing down the plot summary, improving the lead paragraph and I would like to add a Legacy section.--J.D. (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cliff smith[edit]

  • Well, as you said, the lead needs work. But that shouldn't be too hard.
  • The plot, as you also said, is a few hundred words too long. Massive summarization needed there.
  • Actors and characters should be bolded in Cast.
  • Production could stand to see a good copyedit. Probably some subsectioning as well, e.g. Development, Casting, Filming.
  • Reception could be retitled Release; then, the paragraph on Critical reception could be its own subsection.

Other than that, it's shaping up alright. Cliff smith (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these suggestions. I'll start working on them right away.--J.D. (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fires on the Plain[edit]

Though this article has become gotten quite a bit larger since its time as a stub, I'd like ideas on how it can be improved, particularly on the lead and production (Where I've had trouble finding more information). If someone could look through the entire article as well and give advice, that would be appreciated. Yojimbo501 (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Doctor Sunshine[edit]

Each bullet point denotes a section but I veer off into generalities occasionally.

  • The lead doesn't summarize the article fully and what it does cover can be a little too specific. For example, in the second sentence, maybe you could save the fact that Wada is Ichikawa's wife until the production section, we don't need to know where the novel was published or the translator in the lead. I don't think we need the translator's name at all (except maybe in a reference), leave that for the novel's article. The cast isn't mentioned at all. Why phrase it the film "became a part of" the Criterion Collection? Another example of full but general coverage in the lead, I wouldn't bother with DVD releases but focus on when and where it was released theatrically: calling it a 1959 film covers Japan in my mind but when did it first reach the international market? I'd replace "foreign" with "international". Also, there's a lot of one and two sentence paragraphs while, at the moment, there's not really enough information to warrant even two paragraphs.
  • In the infobox, names should generally only be linked at the first mention. The only repeated name is Funikoshi but in this case I'd removed the narrator field instead, that's really more for narrators who don't appear in the film, which is mainly documentaries. Also, flags are being phased out, per WP:FLAG, and since there's only one release date it would be assumed to be the Japanese release. Also, I'd just write "minutes" in full.
  • The plot seems short for a 104 minute movie and a lot of stuff is glossed over. You mentioned on the talk page that you didn't cover his meeting with three soldiers and he killed "only when necessary"? Killed who or what? You don't need to go into detail for everything but things like that should be mentioned. In the third paragraph you call him Private Tamura again, his rank doesn't need to be reestablished. It gets a little unclear when the one guy shoots him and then pleads with him, why the reversal? Also, I'd spell it out rather than alluding to what he comes to understand. I'd also avoid using "apparently". Either it's clear he dies or not. A good method is to read some full reviews, scholar and historian types usually include the ending, and go with the consensus.
  • Tables are generally reserved for lists with more than two columns, I'd got with a bullet list. Again, soldier shouldn't be wikilinked three times.
  • You don't need to explicitly state every source in the main text, that's what the references are for. Good writing is concise writing. In general, I think this article's going to need some copyediting. Here's a link usually doled out by automated reviews on the subject (I remember it being much shorter but there's some good advise there). In terms of wikilinks, common words like island (in the plot section) and film shouldn't be linked and something like atom bomb might benefit from some context, i.e., piping it to Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was still Daiei at the time, not Kadokawa Herald, so keep it consistent throughout the article. I generally call someone by their full name once per section (as many readers won't read an article from start to finish) but within a section I switch to the last name after the first use. Part of the concision thing. You're switching back and forth between full name and last name only. Metaphors should be avoided in encyclopedic writing, thus I'd replace "blessing" with "approval". And who is Ooka? He's established in the lead but not here. Some prose advise, the main idea of a sentence should be expressed first, for example, "To achieve a realistic tone, actors were not yadda yadda." (Contractions are frowned upon too.) I don't understand your bracket usage here, you're using them to provide redundant information.
  • Distribution includes theatrical release, so I would move this section down and rename it "Home video" or "Home media". Establish context, "it" what? On what sort of "tape"?
  • What critics have appreciated the tone, etc.? I would avoid characterizing critical views, such as with "quite harshly". Personally, I read Bosley's review as a positive one: it is a horrific film in what it depicts and it does so quite successfully and he got that. The way you're framing it, it seems like a pan. Again, saying Variety is more positive is your opinion, just tell us what they said. Bock's comments seem better suited to a section comparing the differences from the source. Most articles have bullet point lists of things editors have noticed but it would be great if you could get a referenced section on this. Tessier and Quandt might better fit an "Analysis" type section. (If Ichikawa said that he dies, why are you still using "apparently"?) The response from Ichikawa should probably be in a different section, or sections, too. Sato and Bock as well. Then we're back to proper reception stuff again with Kehr. I'd like to know in what ways it's like Letters from Iwo Jima (also film titles should be italicized). The sentence about Japanese critics not liking it is rather abrupt and seems like it should be part of a different paragraph. I know it can be hard to get a lot of Japanese views but it's a famous film so there's got to be something more in English out there. I like the Criterion Collection too but I think you're emphasizing them too much, this section is about the film's reception, not the DVD's. He insists that Fires on the Plain is an example of what? I think this section could use more concise quotes, some restructuring and a large chunk in the middle should be divvied up elsewhere.
  • The referencing looks a little wonky. There are a number that aren't formatted properly. There's a lot of repeated references, you should be using the "ref name" thing. Again, even in references an instance is wikilinked on the first use only. For videos, you should be putting their role in terms of the video, not their profession, i.e., interviewee. The year in ref 39 shouldn't be linked. Is the bibliography meant to be a further reading section? I'm not sure about how you've refed that book in general. I used a similar retro book, with different chapters by different authors, for Branded to Kill, you might want to try formatting those that way. There weren't any objections during FAC.

Anyway, hopefully my comments will be of some help. It's definitely coming along. Good work. Doctor Sunshine talk 08:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes your comments proved very helpful. I don't mean to blame others, but the part about "Killing only by chance" was there when I started to edit this article frequently and much of the reception section wasn't actually added by me (in particular the beggining and the Variety and bosley review). The part in the reception concerning "He insists FOTP" is an example is taken (as you could tell from the reference) from the criterion release booklet, and I wonder if it makes a difference including it or not. The meeting with the three soldiers lasted a short time (ie. maybe two minutes) and strikes me as unnimportant. But just so you know the relation to the rest of the film, here is a recap of it: Tamura (after getting away from the bombing of the hospital) is climbing a hill, when on the horizon, he spots three Japanese soldiers. He runs to them and reports himself (as you'll remeber, as Pfc. Tamura, though again I just decided to go with private) to them as Tamura. Though the soldiers are suspicious of Tamura for a moment, they begin to observe "Fires on the Plains" and Tamura suspects that they are signal fires made by villagers who are fighting against them. The leader (apparently, as mentioned in yet another undisscussed scene where Tamura breifly meets them again) says they are just burning rice stalks (This is I believe the second mention of the mysterious Fires on the Plains by characters) and that his family back in Japan use to do it. The leader then mentions that they need to mave, or they wont get to palompon, where there is an eveacuation of troops. Tamura asks if he can tag along with them, to which the leader says that he can, but only if he can keep up and then proceeds to talk about how he and his little team eat flesh in New Guinea. He then jokes that he can come along, but that he'd better be carefull or they'll eat him (Tamura). The leaders team then laughs, and one of them notices that his pack of food and supplies is bursting with salt which he stole in a sort of misadventure (I can add these scenes if you want). Tamura then lets them have some of it, and they leave and find the group of soldiers who are gonna cross a road into Palompon. As you can see, it is a significantly more detailed version then I'd add to the article (if anyone wants it on), but I just thought you'd like to know more about the scene I spoke of. Yojimbo501 (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and the use of "Apparently" if you look at part of the talk section was added by some editor for a reason I just didn't understand. He said something about it being different from the end of the novel. I'll change it. The bibliography wasn't added by me either. Mentioning all of the Criterion supplements was something I did add, and I've seen it in several other articles and wondered if it is proper. One more thing, the current "Distribution" section was renamed by Collectonian, not me. There is one more thing, yes, I agree it's a famous film, and probably with the Burmese Harp and The Makioka siters, Ichikawa's most famous work, but I don't speak Japanese, and what I could get is what's in there. When I read that article talking about the Japanese critics (albeit, breifly), it was about the only thing on them I could find if you know where to get a review from Japanese critics at the time, please tell me. Yojimbo501 (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I shouldn't have assumed you'd written everything. Regardless, the article's starting to shape up. Keep at it. Regarding the plot, yes, I think information like that would be good to include. Foreshadowing the fires on the plain and the cannibalism, even threatening Tamura and stealing the salt helps illustrate the tone of the film. MOS:FILM recommends a plot section between 400 and 700 words, currently I'd estimate you have about 300. The way I see it, in a 104 minute movies there are 52 two-minute segments, which means you should be aiming for about 10 words for every two minutes of film. What I mean by this is that even a two minute sequence can be important in a film, or at least worth a sentence or two. Use your own discretion, of course, but it's got room to grow.
I'm not so good with Japanese either but sometimes translated material is avaiable, Sato certainly counts though it would be nice to have some examples of the mentioned mixed and negative reviews. I don't know of any of hand but there's a bibliography at the end of the Senses of Cinema article on Ichikawa that might help—though only one, besides the Quandt book, appears to be in English. You may be able to get it at your library or via an interlibrary loan. ISBN 0-8161-8520-4. There's some more potential sources here. Tons of stuff on Google Books and Scholar. It looks like you should be able to add a healthy Themes or Analysis section too. Doctor Sunshine talk 18:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken. I often assume that the most prominent editor makes most of the material. I will add the parts where Tamura meets the three soldiers and the other parts. I believe I was hessitant to adding material because I was actually working to take away material for Letters From Iwo Jima which me, Collectonian and Girolama Savanorola decided was excessively overlong. Even with the amount of words for FotP and LFIJ being significantly different, I decided to be cautious of adding material. I also mean to add the exact minute of the quotes for the citations from the criterion release interview. I certainly will look at the stuff you've bought up, but I'll probably do some of that tomorrow, and after that I might take a short wikibreak. Yojimbo501 (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No rush. It's a lot of stuff to work on so take your time. I'm just glad to see there are people working on classic film articles like this. Kudos, Doctor Sunshine talk 05:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for everything. I've added the scenes you've requested, though they've come out signifacantly longer then 10 words. Though that is to be expected, as some parts need more details then others. Yojimbo501 (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No trouble at all. It's shaping up. Good stuff. Doctor Sunshine talk 07:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added the American and Japanese release dates, but the former is reliant on IMDB, which, I know isn't always accurate. Oh, and I looked at a book with reviews by Tadao Sato, but I only found a small mention of Fires on the Plain. Yojimbo501 (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing is that the Variety review is for 1961. Perhaps the reviewer spoke Japanese? But, since we can't have contradicting information, I'll remove mention of the American release date. Yojimbo501 (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC) I've also recently added a Analysis section, which I thought ran too short (though there is bound to be something else you showed me which can go in). So, I added something from the Reception section. Looking at some of the Reception section, I realized that a lot of it wasn't actually made of reviews, but that it would probably fit well into the Analysis section. Do you think there are any particular parts which would fit well into the Analysis section? The reception has been called a bit long, so I'm asking you so the sections remain balanced. Yojimbo501 (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now extended the plot section, which I intend to look at soon, and I'll shave off parts, as the summary is now over 700 words. I think this may be a case of just re-writing overly long sentences. Yojimbo501 (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also just moved quite a bit of stuff from the Reception section into the Analysis section. Yojimbo501 (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Batman Begins[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a Good Article and I want to get it up to Featured status. The previous peer review can be found here. Any feedback and suggestions on improving it for FA will be very much appreciated

Thanks, Greg Jones II 20:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but Batmobile, Batsuit, and Soundtrack are not in the lead, for example.
  • Article needs references in a few more places - there is at least one fact tag and the last eight entries in Cast are uncited. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow Superman (film series) is a FA and may offer some ideas. Other FA film articles are at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media
  • Could the Design and SPecial effects sections be combined? Effects is quite short now

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 12:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I have added {{rs}} to those references and will get to them. Gary King (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews/press releases are ALWAYS reliable. Do not delete cites from Superherohype, Indielondon and Batman on film. Alientraveller (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. How do we know a site has accurately reported the interview? The site itself needs to have a reputation for fact checking and reliablity. Same for the other sources being used. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Yes, interviews are more reliable than most self-published websites, but we still need to make sure that the site publishing the interview is at least somewhat reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Superhero Hype! is a reliable source for interviews, set visits and so on, just like IGN and other similar sites. I can't really speak for IndieLondon, but there's no reason to believe a site would make up an entire interview. Alientraveller (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it reliable though? Not everyone is into superheroes or comics. IGN is reliable because it is reasonably large media company, other media companies refer to it, and it has been established for a while. Same needs to be demonstrated for other sites. No, I'm not saying that the site necessarily made up the interview, but we need to know how long the site has been around, etc. For an interview, yes, we're not necessarily looking for the same standards we would look for if this was a BLP issue, but it still needs to be above Weekly World News standards. If a site is the website of a published journal/newspaper/magazine, that helps. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just linked the article. The WSJ and EW consider it reliable. It is not a blog, it is a film news website and part of the Crave Media network. Alientraveller (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There you go then, done for Superhero Hype. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Batman on Film, they've been interviewed here,[1][2][3], and I would consider that good enough if you cannot believe they actually interview people working on the comics and films. Alientraveller (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that fingers are broken across the nation today. Try here: http://www.timeout.com/film/news/488/ to see that the interview is fully covered by numerous media. That some editor chose one site covering it over another shouldn't impugn the source automatically, AGF when an apparently sourced item appears, and the content matches the source. Do some legwork, google a bit. '2008 Nolan Dorchester Batman' found me a number of websites covering the interview.ThuranX (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The Wikipedia article should incorporate the critical analysis from Film Criticism, which I listed here. I think we should see about this analysis and others to "raise the bar" in terms of Featured Articles having extensive thematic detail (which is a little bit of a rarity). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superman Returns[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see it get to at the least Good Article status, and preferably FA at last. There was a previous Peer Review, but that was all the way back in 2006 and the article is much improved. Thanks, rootology (T) 18:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The plot section seems overly long and detailed to me. The article needs to makesure it is written from an out of universe perspective - see WP:IN-U
  • Article needs more references - the last two paragraphs of Production and last three of Visual effects have zero refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Information in refs given is not complete - for exampe, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Lead is too short for WP:LEAD and does not summarize the whole article. The soundtrack and sequel are two headers not in the lead.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Film[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Golden Film is a comprehensive article, that treats its topic without going into unnecessary details. It follows Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability and style. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know which improvements the article needs in order to pass as featured article. – Ilse@ 13:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Article is generally well done but the prose is a bit awkward and could use a copy edit. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • The image comes from a website that seems to indicate it is copyrighted, but my Dutch is very poor and I am not sure what the disclaimer says. Is this a free image or not?
    The website mentions copyright, but as you can read on the image description page, Speravi gave permission to use the image under a GNU FDL license. – Ilse@ 16:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, for FAC you will probably want to send a copy of the permission email to Wikipedia:OTRS. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I no longer have the email and I can't find any explanation on Wikipedia:OTRS about permission emails. – Ilse@ 10:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    QUoting from the page: "If you are an experienced Wikipedian with a question for OTRS about image licensing or permissions Please e-mail permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Hope this helps, you may need to contact the copyright holder again to get the image through FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few examples of awkward sentences
    • For each awarded film there is one trophy for the film crew and another for the film cast. perhaps better as something like Each film that earns the Golden Film receives one trophy for the film crew and another for the cast.?
    • their receiving films? While the cast and crew have considered their receiving films to be successful, critics have said that films that sold only 75,000 or 100,000 tickets cannot be considered a commercial success.
    • during the original cinema circulation? A Golden Film is awarded to a film from the Netherlands once it has sold 100,000 cinema tickets in the Netherlands during the original cinema circulation.[1]
    • Even this See for a chronological list: List of films that received the Golden Film.
  • For FA the article has to be written at a professional level.
  • Another FA criterion is comprehensiveness. While what is here seems fine, it just feels like there is something missing. I think it might be a case of providing context for the reader - see WP:PCR
  • How many Dutch films are released each year? What percentage of Dutch films earn the Gold Film each year?
  • How many tickets does it take for a film to be a commercial success (break even / make a profit)? I know many countries subsidize their film industries - is this the case in the Netherlands?
    I believe this question is already answered in the section 'Response to the award'. "Johan Nijenhuis, the director of Full Moon Party, has admitted outright that he considers only 300,000 visitors a failure." and "It starts to be something for a producer when 350,000 or more cinema tickets are sold." – Ilse@ 16:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I wasn't sure if that was just for that film / that director or in general. Might want to somehow make it clearer that that is for all films. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who gets the actual award - whose house or office is it in generally?
  • In the four years before the award, the bext percentage was 6.1%, in the years since the award started the worst percentage was 9.2% What are the explanations for this? Is it just the award or is something else going on or does no one really know?
    Interesting issue, but I have not found any analysis, and could therefore only speculate about it. – Ilse@ 10:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOS#Quote block quotes should only be used for quotes that are 4 lines or longer
    I posted a question on the talk page: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Block quotes: four lines or four sentences?, so I will come back to this later. – Ilse@ 16:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most refs look good but you cannot cite Wikipedia as a reliable source - ref 12.
    The Wikipedia article used is a featured list. It is used as a reference in this article in order to say how many films have been awarded a Golden Film in each year and how many films in total were awarded, for which at least 52 references are used. You don't consider refering to the featured list is an acceptable exception in this case? – Ilse@ 16:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no way this will get through FAC with a cite to a Wikipedia article, even a FL. Is there no reliable source that is a list of all them by year - that could be cited here? I also note the External link to the official Golden Film website is now a redirect to some sort of film festival. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Netherlands Film Festival (www.filmfestival.nl) awards the Golden Film. The externally linked website (www.goldenfilm.nl) currently redirects to the most recently awarded film on the website of the film festival. However, the list of awarded films on this page is incomplete and does not contain dates, so in order to count the number of awards per year, 52 additional references are needed. (Previously, several users insisted on splitting off List of films that received the Golden Film from this article.) – Ilse@ 10:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments; I am looking into the issues you have raised. I have already peer reviewed an article shortly after I had listed this article for a peer review, see Wikipedia:Peer review/Polar city/archive1. – Ilse@ 16:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your review! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Dead II[edit]

This article shows much information that I think should be reviewed so that I can understand how close the article is to an award. --Tj999 (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J.D. comments: The first thing that I noticed is that there is a wealth of production information but only one citation in the entire Production section despite several references listed further down the article. Quotes should be cited as should every paragraph.--J.D. (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so the article should have some references. --Tj999 (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

O.K., so as a Christian I'm against the subject of this film, but I'm bringing this to attention because of its 112K page size and 170 refs (as of typing).

This will look good as an FA when it arrives on DVD; for now, our focus is to simplfy it down to a manageable ±55K.

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 19:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: for clarification. The peer review request is made by a user who, as far as I can see, has played no part in the editing. I am confused by the wording of the request: "...so as a Christian I'm against the subject of this film", and I don't understand the sentence: "This will look good as an FA when it arrives on DVD; for now, our focus is to simplfy it down to a manageable ±55K". Who is the "our" in "our focus"? My review is aimed at effecting general improvements to the article, rather than assisting a particular agenda. Before I offer my comments, would Sigrandson care to amplify on whose behalf he/she is acting? Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brief Ruhrfisch comment: Thanks to Brianboulton for agreeing to review this. I had read most of it before I saw this notice. The main problems I see with the article are structure and level of detail. This is an article about a controversial film. It should be structured similarly to other film articles. I note Triumph of the Will is about a 1930s controverial documentary film and a FA (although an older FA with fewer references than would be required today), and would be a useful model.

This article does not follow the recommended structure of Wikipedia:WikiProject Films: When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. I note Sicko is a recent controversial documentary film, which although only B class, follows this much more logical and useful structure.

Finally, I think a brief plot summary and cast list would summarize much of the information precisely, then the various controversies could be addressed. As it is there is a real mish-mash with a bit of plot, film criticism, the rebuttals, the counter-arguments to the rebuttals, and then some more plot and it starts all over. I imagine streamlining the structure would avoid much of the repetition and pare it down some. I also think some of the details are unnecessary and repetitive - how many examples are needed for some of these points? Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS My understanding of Slgrandson's comment was that the film is coming out on DVD (delayed with the lawsuit) and the hope was to get this to FA as a resource when it is widely available on DVD.

Brianboulton comments: I thank Ruhrfisch for that clarification, though it still seems strange that the article's editors are uninvolved in the peer review request. However, mine not to reason why, I suppose.

  • Structure: I echo the gist of what Ruhrfisch has said. The structure needs to reflect that this is an article about a film, rather than generally about the intelligent design controversy. I have to say that I found the article absorbing—it is very well written—but I did lose my way somewhat. Many editors have worked on this article, and that might explain the looseness of structure. With 7500+ words of "readable text", and probably another 1500 in the boxed quotes, there is much scope for slimming down the content, and I hope that this can be done without affecting the generally high quality of the prose.
  • Neutrality: This is a problem. Although some attempt has been made to present a balanced view, the impression I had after reading through was of a fairly strong POV against the film and the viewpoint it espouses. This feeling emanates from the very first line, where the film is described as "controversial", rather than as a film which has caused controversy. Statements (uncited) such as "The film refers to evolution as 'Darwinism', a term which has long been abandoned by most biologists as modern theory does not rely on Darwin's ideas alone" indicate an editorial voice, and there are many similar "statement" sentences, most of them admittedly cited. I think it essential, if the article is to be presented to FAC, that it comes across in a more objective manner.
  • Multiple citations: There are many instances of single statements being cited to several sources. I don't think that this is generally necessary; mostly, a single reliable source should be sufficient. Sometimes two may be justified, but strings of reference numbers seriously interfere with the readability of the text. Also, there are more than 20 citations in the lead, to statements which are generally covered in the main text, where they are cited again.
  • Citation formats: Some of the web citations are incorectly formatted.
  • MOS: I fixed a number of date links and other minor matters. I think there are more. Not sure about dashes and nbsps - I think a wiki style expert should give the amended article a careful scrutiny.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanaja (film)[edit]

I've developed this article from a Stub to much more than that in the recent past. Having done so, I was hoping to seek a peer-review from fresh pair of eyes of more experienced editors. Mspraveen (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boarding Gate[edit]

Having greatly expanded the article for Boarding Gate, I feel that it could use peer review for style and layout by users more familiar with the coding and stylistic manual of Wikipedia (I try). Honestly, I believe that the content is better than start-class, but clearly it needs reviewing by the community before it really deserves a re-assessment. Kabuki dreams (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U2 3D[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I created this article from scratch and would like to know how to improve it from its current condition to reach GA-status. Thank you for you help. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dihydrogen monoxide comments

  • This isn't really too far off GA class. Some minor work and you should be able to get there.
  • The setlist ("Track listing") generally goes at the end, just before the references section.
  • Something about the first sentence doesn't really click... it's kinda awkward... I dunno, try reformatting the lead somewhat...
  • I don't think the ratings table belongs in the production section...
  • Considering the amount of information you have on development on stuff, it's surprising there's that little on reception...
  • Some of the external links would work better as inline references.
  • I'd be happy to do a prose review (ie. a GA review) when you nominate this for GA - just ask!
  • I hope these comments help. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dihydrogen, this is great feedback. Others, please provide more! Dream out loud, since you're the one driving this (and deservedly), my recommendation to you is to make sure you follow up on Dihydrogen's offer to copy edit prose - this is possibly the hardest thing to get assistance on. The offer is thus gold. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not certain how useful this might be, but here's another source from one of the camera operators. Let me know if you need any technical jargon "translated". Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pather Panchali[edit]

Pather Panchali, an Indian film directed by Satyajit Ray, is one of the Core articles in wikiproject film. The article has undergone substantial improvement lately. I request you to kindly give inputs for further development, with a view to a FAC in near future.

There are some points in the article which I shall address soon. For example, the English spelling of one of the main characters (Sarbajaya) is spelled differently in different places in the article. Please also see if the plot sounds ok. Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the spelling of Sarbajaya. Also removed extra Cast section, as the Casting subsection already existed under Production section. Some FA articles like Casablanca has separate Cast section, but other FA articles like Halloween or Casino Royale have Casting subsection under Production section, just like Pather Panchali. However, there is one difference, characters of Halloween have separate wikipages (clear blue links are good visual cues) and James Bond has his own page, surely we are not going to write similar pages. Does it make sense to mark first occurence of a character in plot with bold letters? Not sure. About plot, currently it has 777 words, within limits and probably there is no alternative to the free-flow style for this story (not much timeline/geography change, nor too many big events). Anyway, good copyediting can always help. GDibyendu (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few comments regarding the plot in the Discussion section. Maybe I'll check up on that Nischindipur thing, but I'm also wondering about the reference to kaash flowers. Don't have much to say now, but well, we'll see... --Kuaichik (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:Blofeld of SPECTRE[edit]

  • "Pather Panchali was warmly received by the audience globally" -too generalised - implies the entire world saw the film and loved it. Didi the Gabonese or Lithuanian people warmly receive the film?. I would try to avoid sweeping statements like that as much as possible
  • "The film is often included in the lists of greatest movies of all time". -which lists? Would it appear in a list in Brazil or Mexico ? I can see it was featured in some notable American lists, ranking alongside The Godfather is huge but I can only vaguely recall seeing one of his films in a list on cable. This is a strong claim needs supporting.
  • Why is the cast section entirely missing? There should be a cast section after plot. Use Casino Royale as a guideline.
  • The plot is in desperate need of rewriting and condensing, It lacks conciseness and relies on almost entirely subjective content. It is told too much like a pleasurable story rather than summarizing the outline and plot of the film in an encylopedia entry. The plot could be cut considerably by planning it accordingly and sticking to the main points structually.
  • Too many peacock words particularly in the plot. The casting sections don't flow they need to be rewritten to avoid short snappy sentences and phrasing
  • It is mentioned many times that "The film was made on a shoestring budget". Are there any figures available on what the budget was?
  • "In retrospect, the technical team was immensely talented" - POV and tone needs addressing. Some of the sentences in this section read like a magazine article
  • The article is my view gets stronger and stronger towards the end. The last few paragraphs seem to be written a lot better although it may have some tone/neutrality issues, but I would pay serious attnetion to the plot and first half of production and mergin short paragrpahs and sections together. The main problem is that the overall article just doesn't flow and this can only be addressed by a serious amount of copyediting which takes time.

♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:Ravichandar84[edit]

The lead section is long enough, but then I am of the opinion that it could be expanded even more. The Plot section does not carry any inline citations. Complex confusing terms could be avoided. Apart from these minor shortcomings, the article is pretty fine. -RavichandarMy coffee shop 15:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:Mspraveen[edit]

  • Lead section: Can be tightened in the first paragraph by writing something like "the film is an adaptation of its namesake 19xx Bengali novel written by Bibhutibhushan Bandopadhyay."
  • Lead section: It is the first of three films which comprise the Apu trilogy and depicts the childhood of the protagonist Apu, in the rural countryside of 1920s Bengal. three films and trilogy is redundancy and the reader might want to know the names of the other two atleast - Instead why not something like - "It is the first film from the Apu trilogy that depicts the childhood of the protagonist, Apu, in the rural countryside of 1920s Bengal; the other two being Aparajito and Apur Sansar."
  • Plot section: Did some copyediting and standardised into British English. I hope the main contributors find my edits appropriate.
  • Filming section: Third paragraph - The Government of West Bengal loaned him money, allowing him to finish the film. However, the government misunderstood the nature of the movie, and considered it as a documentary for rural upliftment, such as the need for road improvement. Indeed the money was loaned on record for 'roads improvement', a reference to the film's title. - This is, however, followed up immediately with Due to the omnipresent lack of funds, the shooting was stretched, and could be done only intermittently.. The whole sequence of events from the third paragraph is quite confusing. Eventually, it appears that Government of West Bengal and MOMA were the funding agencies. If thats the case, why only the former is given credits for producing the film?
  • Release and reception section: While the film was in production, a number of westerners, including Monroe Wheeler from the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA), saw the rushes and immediately recognized its originality. This has been addressed in the filming section, isn't it?
  • Release and reception section: Needs more copyediting. The Awards, Soundtrack and DVD section can be clubbed with this section. Awards reflect reception and soundtrack and DVD suggest release details.
  • There are far too many sub-sections/sections with very few sentences. For me, they don't warrant a separate section/sub-section and instead they can be clubbed with other bigger sections. What happens here is that when such sections are used in excess, it disturbs the fluency of an article. As Blofeld suggested, you might want to see Casino Royale (2006 film) or more native Rang De Basanti that I modeled on the former.
  • I fully agree with Blofeld's fourth point. The article surely needs more conciseness and needs a look of an encyclopedic entry. Without short and snappy sentences, the article will see a greater sense of fluency.
  • Submission to the League of Copywriters might just help a good deal for this article.

Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Blofeld and Praveen for your inputs. I am unable to respond to your inputs immediately, due to some real life commitments. We'll attend to them soon, and update you on the improvement. Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:Aditya Kabir[edit]

Sorry for the delay. It's that darn real life. Haven't had much time to go through article thoroughly yet. But, at the first look I found some areas of improvement for sure.

  • A bit too many short sections. Influences could become a part of the Production section. Release and response and Awards could become a part of the Reception sections. May be Legacy and the Trilogy could merge as well. Also, a separate section on the tile is looking a bit odd. For higher level assessment drives, short sections could prove to be a problem.
  • The prose often slips into a non-encyclopedic tone, even to the point of using peacock words. For instance - Ray kept working as a graphic designer, exhausted his last penny, and sold his prized possession of LP records in order to raise fund for the film. His production manager, Anil Chowdhury, was reduced to spend nights in a taxi at one point, and he convinced Ray's wife Bijoya to pawn her jewels....
  • There still may be some areas left out of coverage, like, for instance, the music. As I understand, Pather is a must-see for many film-schools. Quite a number of major critiques and directors have written on the film, a few of them not too positively. But, not a lot is here (Well, may be that could become material for another article like Critical response to Pother Panchali or something).
  • The much written train sequence and it's repeat could earn some place here (well, may be along with other much discussed sequences, like throwing the stolen stuff into the pond)
  • The John Houston bit is looking a bit awkward where it is now, may be it could be shifted to the Response section.
  • And, mmmmm... this could be a personal prejudice, the plot section looks a bit too long. Are you sure that it needs to be this elaborate?

I'll take another look day after tomorrow. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update by Dwaipayan[edit]

Thanks guys for the excellent reviews. We've tried to address many concerns. Some (most notably the Plot section) has not been worked on yet. Here the updates:

A general concern in the reviews has been too many (small) subsections. Now, the structure has been changed. "Influences" follows "Cast" (which, in turn, has now been introduced per Blofeld's suggestion). "Post-production: soundtrack" (IMO, the name of this new subsection can be just "Soundtrack" instead of "Production: soundtrack". Views??) is now a new subsection under "Production". DVD information is within "Release and response". The earlier sections of "Sequels—The Apu trilogy" and "Legacy" have been merged under "legacy". Earlier sections of "Reception" and "Awards" have been merged into "Critical reception and awards".

Now, coming to specific reviews by individual users:

Blofeld's comments

  • Global reception - removed "global", put "India, US and UK, among other countries". How's that?
  • generalised comment on "lists of greatest films" - now specifically named the magazines. Is that better?
  • Cast section - added.
  • Plot - will work on that.
  • Peacock terms- started to remove them. Please help identify more.
  • Shoestring budget - unfortunately no numerical data I could find, in any of the books, and I doubt if there is any data (except may be the production manager's audit). This is really unfortunate that numerical data on the recent Indian films are not readily available, let alone this film from 1955. Still, would try to dig out something.
  • Immensely talented - toned down. Please have a look.
  • Flow problem—true. Copyedit is needed. And that's why this PR is started. Hope, the article will soon flow, at least like a small river ( cf. the big river flow of Pather Panchali, as described by Kurosawa)

Ravichander's comments

Inline citation in plots, though I am not 100% sure, is usually not needed, unless there is some commentary like sentence. Indeed, the plot, in its present form, have some commentaries. Will add citations. Regarding complex terms, please help finding them (often the main contributors become blind to such things, so please help).

Mspraveen's comments

  • Lead - Did not do the sentence recommended by you. Was trying, but was having some problem in construction. Please go ahead and change it as you deem necessary.
  • Lead - yes, three films and trilogy was redundant. Changed that per you. However, could not accomodate the names of the other two films due to sentence construction problem. May be have to add one more sentence to name those two.
  • Plot - of course your edits were appropriate. More will be needed.
  • Filming - tried to make it more coherent and flowing. Please have a look.
  • Release and response - repetition done away with.
  • Reception, DVD etc - have merged, as discussed in the beginning of this post.
  • too many subsection - discussed above.
  • consise, snappy sentences etc - works going on. Please help.
  • LoC - will submit to them.

Aditya's comment

  • too many short sections - discussed above.
  • peacock words- removed many. Will do more. Please help, identify more.
  • Coverage - ok. Will read more, and try to add.
  • train, pond sequences - do you suggest a section on those much-discussed scenes? the section will have detailed discussion on those scenes with references (I have some references, more can be found). also, I invite views from others on inclusion of such a section.
  • John Huston - please go ahead with your change. Let's see how it shapes.
  • length of plot - no idea here. Is the plot long? Other views, please.

Thanks a lot to everybody. Please continue the review. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

one more comment. Mspraveen asked why only Govt of west bengal is mentioned as producer, when MOMA also helped with money. That is because the credit title of the film mentions only Govt of West bengal as the producer, and not MOMA. That MOMA also helped with money is referenced from Robinson's Inner Eye book (details of the book available in bibliography section of the article). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More update Tried to condense and shorten the plot. Please have a look. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note A probable alternate version of the plot is being worked on here. The alternate version tries to linearly telling the story. Editors familiar with the film are requested to help. However, that version, when completed, would be very large. Please se and comment. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMHO, The present version works fine. BTW, I may have been wrong about John Houston, with the mention of financing and all that. A separate section on the critically acclaimed sequences may not be a bad idea at all. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Girolamo Savonarola[edit]

  • "later regarded as one of the greatest auteurs of cinema" - peacock, weasel, and POV.
  • "by the audience in India, USA and UK" - what distinguishes these particular countries' reception (aside from India, as the producing country)? "warmly received internationally" is better and doesn't sound as comprehensive as global.
  • more needs to be said in the lead of how it was one of the first Indian films to be praised - even noticed - by western critics.
  • The "usually translated into English" sentence needs citation.
  • "The scene is considered as one the magic moments of the film." - by whom?
  • "dreams a better career" - dreams of a better career
  • "But, in reality, he is easily exploited" - either drop the But or replace it with However
  • "bent over at almost a ninety degree angle" - was this measured? something less specific would be more appropriate
  • "Durga, a boisterous girl," - sounds like she's being introduced again - needs some rewriting
  • "those with aunt Indir," aunt should either be capitalized or dropped
  • "Apu and Durga shares" - share, not shares
  • "she does not let go any opportunity" - does not let go of any
  • bioscope should link to the wikipedia article (unless this is not what is intended - I was under the impression that they were obsolete by the 20's, although the situation in India may have been different)
  • "Indeed, one day" - drop indeed; awkward and superfluous
  • "The scene of Apu and Durga running through the fields of white kaash flowers to see the train is one of the most celebrated scenes in the film." - not appropriate for the Plot section, which should only describe the plot, not the critical reaction. This sentence needs to be moved elsewhere and cited appropriately.
  • "discover their old aunt, Indir, dead." - awkward; rewrite
  • "travel to nearby cities for new vocations" - is he planning to take several jobs? Also, a vocation is the opposite of casual labor.
  • "embittered as her sorrows pile up" - as they pile up? Isn't what you're describing the very piling of those sorrows?
  • "(though she denied it)" - explaning this earlier in the plot makes more sense than leaving it for a parenthetical aside
  • "as if to preserve her memory from any belated taint" - OR concern
  • "Ladri di biciclette (Bicycle Thieves) (1948) by Vittorio De Sica" - just Bicycle Thieves is enough; the rest of the information is in that article and tangential to this one.
  • "reflects the effect" - how about just "is indebted to"? Also, lose the "Indeed," again.
  • The last sentence of Influences might work better by simply adding Renoir's influence to the end of the prior sentence; Corliss need not be mentioned, as he is the reference.

There's more to be said, but I have to get some sleep, so let's see how these are handled for now. Keep up the hard work - it's definitely heading in the right direction, and the references are pleasantly strong and fluff-free. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Girolamo Many of your points have been addressed. However, the first four concerns are yet to be addressed.

  • "later regarded as one of the greatest auteurs of cinema" - if we drop "greatest", will it be ok? This sentence is not cited in the lead, but has been discussed in the section "Legacy" (why he is an auteur, with citation). So, this can be cited in the lead as well. The book reference counts him among the auteurs of cinema. So, imo, no problem if the statement is like, "later regarded as an auteur of cinema".
That's a rather ambiguous statement. Potentially any director might be regarded as an auteur. The other problem is that the very concept of an auteur is debatable to begin with. I have no problem with what you're trying to say - that Ray was a respected and influential director - but I'm wary of the wording. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by the audience in India, USA and UK" - this was done in response to Blofeld's review (the very first point in his series of comments). No problem in making it "internationally". Hope Blofeld is ok with that.
I'd just drop "warmly received by the audience in India, USA and UK, among other countries. It was" entirely. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • more needs to be said in the lead of how it was one of the first Indian films to be praised - even noticed - by western critics. - yes, that will be done. Will try to make a one or two sentence gist of the "critical reception" section, and also add additional material/citation as needed. Please allow some time.
As per last comment. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "usually translated into English" sentence needs citation.-well, I'm planning to write it in sort of this way, "The film title in English is "Song of the Little Road".(with citation from the Robinson's book) However, some sources/commentators have described it with similar but different names, such as X, Y and Z (with citation of those sources)."
Cleaned up the sourcing a bit, but well done tracking those down! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, the word "usually" won't be there. And other alternate translations will also be mentioned. Is that fine? (the works will be done tomorrow). Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update
Added in "critical reception" that it was the first Indian film to get major critical attention internationally (with refs). And added one sentence in the lead - "It was the first Indian cinema that attracted major critical attention internationally.". Does it suffice?
As per above. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Title section now begins as follows "The title of the film in English is "Song of the Little Road". However, some commentators translated the title in similar but different ways, for example, "The Lament of the Path", "Song of the Road" and "Song of the Open Road"." (with citations for each translations). Is that ok?
Have not yet changed "India, USA and UK" and "greatest auteurs" sentences (reasons discussed above in Reply to Girolamo). Will change after further inputs from you and others. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More

  • "The lady generously allowed Ray, a complete novice then, to shoot a film on her husband's masterpiece." - generously and masterpiece are very peacock. The entire sentence seems to somewhat repeat the previous one, so integrating them together would make sense. (Or just drop this one entirely.)
Yes, the sentence repeated the previous one! Removed it.
  • "Ray's adaptation of the novel involved many changes, including compression, omission, and occasional addition." - virtually all adaptations do; this prefatory therefore is probably not needed.
Removed.
  • "celebrated scene of Apu and Durga running" - celebrated by whom?
Removed "celebrated".
  • three of the main actors were named Banerjee - are they related? Either way, it probably needs to be clarified.
No, they were not related. For clarification, if we put a sentence like, "Three of the main actors' surname was banerjee, although they were not related." will it be ok?
  • The first paragraph of "Filming" has some POV, peacock, and citation issues. Again, I agree with the gist of what you are saying, but the phrasing and citation is poor.
Tried to remove POV and peacock. Will add citations.
  • "While shooting, he zeroed in on Boral, a village near Calcutta, as the location of the shooting of the film." - This does not make sense to me.
Removed the sentence. Managed in a different way by User:GDibyendu.
  • Funding questions: what made West Bengal finally decide to loan money? The article states the official reason, but why did they suddenly step in? Seems somewhat non-sequitur (or deus ex machina) without any prior explanation. Also, did Huston see the footage before Wheeler? The article seems to imply that he might have tipped Wheeler off, but Wheeler's mention comes first, so it's confusing.
Excellent catch. Yes, I read in a book that Bidhan Chandra Roy, then the Chief Minister of West Bengal, was persuaded by a contact of Ray's mother to see the footages of the film. The Chief Minister then directed his officials to loan Ray some money. I shall add this once I locate the source.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added the info on the chief minister's intervention. Please see if it sounds ok.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Wheeler and Huston, clarified the temporal relationship of their visits, and Huston's action. Huston came after about six months of Wheeler's visist. Wheeler had asked him to check the progress of the project. Please see if it is clear now.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Ravi Shankhar well known prior to this film?
Ravi Shankar did his first public performance in 1939. He was at an early stage of his career, and was just beginning to have international tours at the time of Pather Panchali, although he already was the music director of All India Radio. so, how should it be put. For the time being, the sentence is as follows: "The soundtrack of the film was scored by the sitar maestro Pandit Ravi Shankar, who was at early stage of his career, having debuted in 1939." (with ref). Please comment.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When Ray met him, he hummed a tune" - who hummed it?
Shankar hummed it, clarifiied.
  • "most important pieces of the score" - most important to whom? most important how/why?
Well, the sense I tried to convey was "majority of the score"; now re-wrote in that way.
  • Is there any more substantial information about the release of the film? It seems somewhat brief for what was a highly influential film even at the time.
Not really. I read many sources for the release. The important information gathered from the sources are written here. Apart from this, there were some info that I thought was not needed, for example, how the producer of a Hindi film (the next change of Pather Panchali in the first Calcutta cinema hall where it was released) came to meet Ray one morning with dreary eyes (having seen Pather Panchali) etc.
However, the film, before the release in Calcutta cinema hall, was once shown in a sort of party, where anybody hardly paid any importance to the film. This can be added. I am trying to find out the source.

Okay, more to follow later - good luck with this for now! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have responded to many of your concerns. More to follow. Thanks a lot for your help. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part 3

Let's start with some old issues still not resolved:

  • the peacock/POV issues regarding Ray are not going to be resolved by changing the word auteur to director.
  • The Banerjee non-relation needs to be dealt with. (Perhaps as a parenthetical?)

New observations:

  • Do you have a better source for the 122 minute version? It just seems - given the excellent overall quality of sources and documentation for the film - that one should be able to find something more reliable than a passing mention in a university screening's program notes to verify this.
  • The newly added influences (Kurosawa and Bimal Roy) could be cleaned up a bit and perhaps combined into one sentence.
  • What is a "common friend"?
  • Footages is not a word.
  • How was Monroe Wheeler affiliated with MoMA?
Wheeler was head of the department of exhibitions and publications of MoMA. Added with NYT ref.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd drop maestro and Pandit from Shankar's first mention, as it's peacock and arguably neither would have been considered fait accompli c. 1955.
Dropped both. Wrote as "sitar player".--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you clarify what sort of "sustained opposition" occurred? Why did Nehru sign off on the film for Cannes, then?
  • "they reportedly found" - weasel words.
  • If this was released in India a year prior to Cannes, why is the Indian reception following the Cannes one?
  • All of the awards need references, and it may be easier to simply recite all of the awards rather than try to create sentences for each year of awards.
  • The legacy image is a poor choice and does not illustrate anything directly involving the film alone, nor does it seem that any of the people within it are affliated with PP. I would drop it entirely.
Image removed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cahiers du cinema had a famous issue called "Ray vs Ray" where their contributors had to choose between Nicholas Ray and Satyajit Ray. I believe this was the late 50s or early 60s, but that might be worth mentioning perhaps...
  • The Variety reference is wrong (ref 65) - the film was 11th in the 1962 Sight and Sound poll.
Yes, Variety was wrong. Removed the wrong info.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roger Ebert also wrote a "Great Films" essay on the trilogy, which may be handy.
  • The last paragraph needs a fair bit of work to avoid peacock/POVness, and the list of contemporary directors is superfluous.

Overall, though, it's definitely coming along. Look forward to seeing this in A-Class review and FAC. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the excellent review. However, this time I'll be late addressing them (may take 1-2 weeks), unless someone else does the job. Please keep the peer review active. the work will be done gradually. Once again, thanks a lot.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely understood. Not certain it's necessary to keep the PR open if there's no new comments being made, though, but please do let me know when this article goes to higher review processes, as I suspect it will do quite well. :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Star Wars[edit]

Hello, I believe that this Portal could be worthy of the featured portal rank but there are still a few things that may need changing. In 2006, this portal was put up for featured portal but was rejected because it was too new. Two years later, I believe it has a chance ...

  • For instance, a lot of the portal pages do not have the portal link. This includes even the main pages such as Star Wars: Episode I and Star Wars: Expanded Universe. It would be very helpful if people could fix these pages by adding the following template below infoboxes and the like: {{portal|Star Wars|Star Wars Logo.svg}} It should end up looking like this on the pages. (See below)



If for any reason it does not, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.
 Done I have placed the portal link on every FA- and GA-rated Star Wars article listed on WikiProject Star Wars (except Ian McDiarmid) and also on as many other Star Wars articles as I could find along the way. SunDragon34 (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The layout of the current portal page is good but at the moment does not contain any pictures. I am not very good at formatting (I'll admit) so if anyone else could help on that, that would be great.
  • Also, if anyone else could regularly update this site (more than it already is perhaps) that should also lead to a better portal page!
  • If there is anything else that you can think of that you think will improve the page please do not hesitate to either ask or just do it yourself!

Thanks, hopefully this should get moving on pretty well, pretty quickly, SkE (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Graffiti[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of the failed Feature Article Nomination. The other editors stated that the prose was fairly bad and that I had an egotistical attitude towards other editors. Any suggestions would be nice.

Thanks, Wildroot (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/American Graffiti/archive1.

U2 3D[edit]

I have worked on this article from the very beginning and feel that it may be eligible for good article status. My goal is to eventually make this into a featured article someday. I've made sure that every fact in the article is properly cited, and the only expansions really needed right now are to the synopsis section (I have no idea what to do with it) and the reception section. Any input I can get would be really appreciated. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dream, very minor issues, two redlinks: "3ality Digital" could be eliminated, some common words are wikilinked and overlinking is unnecessary. As for the style, writing and comprehensiveness, it stands up well as a GA candidate. As for your concerns, the background note on U-2 and Bono could come from contemporary book/print sources, while it would be useful to provide critical reaction as well as general reception notes instead of just quoting the grosses. There must be some critics' reviews that can bolster this section. As for a synopsis, there really isn't one other than a "set list" but a description of the concert could be developed. A great start but some more work would benefit the overall evaluation. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Dirty Dancing[edit]

Seeking to take the article about this 1987 film to Featured status. It's already been through one WikiProject Peer Review in June 2007, and is at Good Article status, but an FA nomination a month ago did not succeed. I've done some more cleanup since then, and am seeking another Peer Review before trying again for FA. Thanks, Elonka 12:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The story details the moment of time that a teenaged girl crosses over into womanhood both physically and emotionally - have a think about this bolded bit and see if it reads any less with it out. Can definitely lose the 'both', the adjectives don't really add much but make it more cumbersome to read.
    • Hmm, will think about it. It's sort of one of the key elements of the story, and as I recall some of the crew described it this way, but I'll think if there's a different way to word it. --Elonka 07:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As she further befriends the staff, - I find this clunky but an alternatve is yet to spring to mind...
  • pursues a clandestine affair anyway. - I haven't actually seen the film. If they are already in some form of relationship I'd use continues rather than pursues here.
  • Homework - make a stub for It's My Turn the movie as this links to the song.
    • The film was already listed in the song stub. I reworked the stub so that it's more clear that it covers both. --Elonka 07:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - prosewise it isn't too bad. I picked up a few things an no doubt others will pick up more. WRT comprehensiveness, it looks pretty good, I wonder if there isn't some other scholarly critique which discusses its success and/or place in culture in a bit more detail. It would be fantastic to add something if there was something about. The last section Other versions' is a bit stubby, a few more words on each item may make it run a bit better. Anyway, not too far away. Must see this one day I guess....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your time! In terms of a scholarly work, there's this, I'll see what I can work in:
Wiams, William (2004-11-20). "Baby in the Underworld: Myth and Tragic Vision in Dirty Dancing" (pdf). Retrieved 2008-04-06.
--Elonka 07:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant find. Have a read and see what you can add. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs)
Alright, I've grokked it and have added a new section, Dirty Dancing#Plot analysis, let me know what you think? --Elonka 00:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Matthewedwards (talk · contribs)
  • "dirty dancing" links to mambo, a dab page. Better if it were linked to mambo (dance)
    • Good catch! Fixed. --Elonka 07:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dirty dancing" in Plot, then "Dirty Dancing" in Pre-production (the act, not the movie)
    • The second one is capitalized because it refers to the title of the competitions, but I agree it could go either way. --Elonka 07:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "gave the film a major sendoff" huh?
    • The sources describe the Times review as a major one, a half-page article with a major headline, as opposed to a minor review. I believe that one of the sources (video documentary) also described it as "major sendoff" but I'd have to doublecheck. Could you elaborate on your concern? --Elonka 07:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The word "sendoff". A sendoff to me is kind of like a big ol' party before someone leaves for a new city/job/life. If it was a review, I'd "say review". -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright, changed to "major review". --Elonka 00:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with viewers rating the film highly as "would watch this again."" Should be referenced
  • No mention of whether the movie actually was released to video after only a weekend of theatrical release, and if it was given a longer theatrical release, no explaination of why
    • The sources are not specific, but the implication is that it stayed in theaters. --Elonka 07:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "also became a fan-favorite that is often listed in top 10 "most watched" lists." WP:OR
    • Reworked the sentence and added a source. --Elonka 07:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other tragedies followed." Vestron going bankrupt maybe unfortunate, but not a tragedy.
    • Changed to "Some of the cast and crew died in tragic ways within the next few years." --Elonka 07:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Any comments, questions, or if you need a re-review or follow-up, let me know. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help!  :) --Elonka 07:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by User:Bzuk

  • Given the iconic nature of the film, textual sources should be available and included as a bibliography
    • I have provided the ones that I know about. --Elonka 15:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All reference citations should have the following format: Author (last, first name), Title, Place of Publishing (if required): Publisher, date (retrieval date). An example is:
    Judith Newmark. "How a Disney made-for-TV movie suddenly became ... A 'high school' craze", 'St. Louis Post Dispatch', 2007-01-21. should appear as: *:Newmark, Judith. "How a Disney made-for-TV movie suddenly became... A 'high school' craze." St. Louis Post Dispatch, January 21 2007. Retrieved: April 13 2008.
  • Why is there an ISO dating in the references?
    • I'm not understanding this one, please be more specific? --Elonka 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no consistency in retrieval dates used for citations, some have them, some don't
    • The ones that are online have retrieval dates. --Elonka 15:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dirty Dancing: Live in Concert" should be in italics as a title of a work
  • There is no cast list or cast section
    • This is one of those things I've been getting conflicting advice about. Some people like cast lists, others don't. I opted to remove it entirely --Elonka 15:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seventeen-year-old" is normally written out as "17-year old"
  • "wrapped up" is normally "wrapped" in film lingo
  • "Many filmgoers, after seeing the film once, went right back into the theater to watch it a second time." is inconsistent, did you mean they immediately went back to catch the next showing? probably not. Suggestion: "Many filmgoers, after seeing the film once, went back to watch it a second time." (based on the premise that you didn't literally mean that they watched the film twice in succession)
    • The first meaning is correct. They left the theater, turned around, bought another ticket and went right back in. --Elonka 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "So Vestron promoted the film themselves, and it premiered on August 16, 1987." could be more effectively written as "Consequently Vestron promoted the film themselves; premiering Dirty Dancing on August 16, 1987." These two thoughts/main ideas could also be two separate sentences as the promotion is not necessarily tied to its premiere.
  • "off the script." usually written "off script"
  • "Other casting choices were Broadway actor Jerry Orbach as Dr. Jake Houseman, Baby's father; and Jane Brucker as Lisa Houseman, Baby's older sister." could be written as "Other casting choices were Broadway actor Jerry Orbach as Dr. Jake Houseman, Baby's father and Jane Brucker as Lisa Houseman, Baby's older sister." (no need for a semi-colon)
    • Hmm, the "Baby's father and Jane Brucker" sounds odd to me without punctuation to separate the thoughts. --Elonka 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Baby then proceeds through tests and trials (dancing lessons, Penny's abortion, the performance at the Sheldrake) to achieve personal growth, "knowledge acquired through personal experience", for which she is rewarded, by sexual union with Johnny." (sentence too long, consider two sentences)

After saying all that, the article is a comprehensive, well-written and eminently interesting article. FWiW, all my comments hinge on minor aspects of the writing and referencing. 15:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! With all the comments here, the article is much stronger as a result. I look forward to submitting it for FA again soon, please let me know if you have any other suggestions. --Elonka 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is much better than in the last FAC. This shows especially in the plot section. I don't see any major obstacles for a successful future FAC, but I can still suggest a few minor tweaks. Ignore them where you think they are bad, in which case you don't have to explain yourself. I like working in batches, so the following isn't everything; if this peer review closes earlier than I can complete my review, I'll give you my notes in other ways. This review includes everything up until (including) the "Pre-production" section

  • "Baby brings her father, who is a doctor," - it is mentioned earlier that her father is "the personal physician of the resort owner Max Kellerman". Maybe move his job description there, e.g. "Baby's father, Dr. Jake Houseman (Jerry Orbach), is the personal physician of the resort owner Max Kellerman (Jack Weston)."
  • The "Plot analysis" section should say who made this analysis. If available, a second analysis source wouldn't hurt.
  • "The hero, Baby, is an innocent who receives" - an innocent what?
  • direct quotes like "knowledge acquired through personal experience" need a reference right behind the quotation marks, even though this duplicates unnecessary refs
  • "Dirty Dancing is in large part based on..." -> "A large part of Dirty Dancing is based on..."
  • "For a location for the film, they did not find anything suitable in the Catskills, so they decided..." -> "As the producers did not find a suitable filming location in the Catskills, they decided..."
  • "However, the two of them met, worked things out, ..." -> "However, the two of them worked things out in a meeting, ..."
  • "Bergstein initially wanted him to play the part of the social director, but then later asked him to play the part of the magician." - contains the phrase "to play the part of" twice
  • "The part of Baby's mother was originally given to..." - this is a run-on sentence. Consider splitting after "Bishop" and combine the resulting second sentence with the following sentence

– sgeureka t•c 13:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(continued) As was suggested, I made some quick improvement attemps myself, which should be doublechecked for grammar (just in case). I also have some more notes (below) where I rather not touch the article myself at the moment.

  • "When it came time to select actual music for the film,..." sounds grammatically awkward to my non-native ears, but I may be wrong. Shouldn't it be "When it became time" or "When the time came to"?
  • "The film's huge success had the paradoxical effect of backfiring on some of the participants." - I don't really see what and how something "backfired", just a little bad luck that is not necessarily related to DD.
  • In the "Legacy" section, the facts about Swayze's future career appear disjointed, at least as far as it comes to their connection to the film. How was he parodied? Did he get the other roles because of the success of DD? (probably, but that needs to be pointed out). The prose in this section also seems not as fluent as elsewhere, IMO, and I can help out once the Swayze sentences are fixed.
  • "Johnny Castle's line "Nobody puts Baby in a corner" has been used in song lyrics," - source?
  • The last two sentences of the first paragraph in "Stage version" mix Simple Present and Simple Past in an awkward way.

– sgeureka t•c 20:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just some quick thoughts. Much better than before.

(1) The coming of age aspect should reference Bildungsroman as a matter of simple professionalism, given this is the generally accepted academic term (descriptor), as monomyth is more of a Campbellism (i.e. analytic).

(2) Still marred by overly trivial descriptions especially in production and filming sections.

(3) prose: still weak & really needs some work for FA:

Ok, so instead of just shooting my mouth off, here's what I mean in this regard: Consider this paragraph (selected randomly):

Director Ardolino was adamant that they choose dancers who could also act, as he did not want to use the "stand-in" method that had been used with the 1983 Flashdance. For the female lead of Frances "Baby" Houseman, Bergstein chose the 26-year-old Jennifer Grey, daughter of the Oscar-winning actor and dancer Joel Grey of the 1972 film Cabaret. They then sought a male lead, initially considering 20-year-old Billy Zane, who had the visual look desired, but initial dancing tests when he was partnered with Grey did not meet expectations. The next choice was 34-year-old Patrick Swayze, who had been noticed for his roles in The Outsiders and Red Dawn, in which he had co-starred with Grey. Swayze was a seasoned dancer, with experience from the Joffrey Ballet. The producers liked him, but Swayze's agent was against the idea. However, Swayze read the script, liked the multi-leveled character of Johnny, and took the part anyway. Grey was not happy about the choice, as she and Swayze had had difficulty getting along on Red Dawn. However, the two of them met, worked things out, and when they did their dancing screen test, the chemistry between them was obvious. Bergstein described it as "breathtaking".[9]

I would rewrite this as:

Director Ardolino, after his experience using stand-ins with Flashdance in 1983, was adamant actors be chosen who could dance. This requirement disqualified 20-year old Billy Zane, who otherwise had the desired "look." Producers then considered 34-year old Patrick Swayze, a seasoned dancer after his lengthy experience with the Joffrey Ballet. Against the advice of his agent, Swayze liked the character and took the role. Although he and Jennifer Grey had previously clashed on the set of Red Dawn, they met and resolved their differences. By the time they took their screen test, the chemistry between them was "breathtaking" according to Bergstein.[9]

(I removed completely the sentence about Jennifer Grey, which is redundant wrt her starring in the film, says nothing about her dancing and is a pointless non-sequitur in terms of the minibio. If you have something about her ability to dance, place it here. Otherwise, kill it.)

Pretty much every paragraph needs to be tightened up like that; crisper prose, a more judicious eye for the relevant detail and less unnecessary guff that distracts from the main points.

(4) Finally, last time I objected to unsourced claims about the legacy, but I think that is one of the most interesting things about this (chick)flick ;). Is there no material that can be used to flesh out its legacy? After reining in the prose and trivia of the various production sections, there should be plenty of space. As it stands, we have a sort of laundry list of stuff; since this has been the subject of academic treatment, however, it suggests there may be something more substantive to say about it.

Ok, sorry if I am being too direct, but there's a strong potential here. Just needs some more work. Damn now I have time of my life stuck in my head. Damn you Dirty Dancing! Eusebeus (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mulholland Drive (film)[edit]

I saw this movie about 2 weeks ago or so and it intoxicated me. So I did my best to read everything I could and added to the article accordingly. I would like to know its potential for FA, since I've not written a film article to this extent before. I would like to know what to add, remove, alter, clean up, and clarify. Your assistance is appreciated, and thank you for reading the article. --Moni3 (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well written, with extensive referencing, and an attempt to establish a neutral voice being successful. My minor concerns remain that there is an inconsistency in dating and citation formats. A final assessment may have to wait since I am recusing myself from a full review. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Noted about inconsistencies in formatting citations. I'm going to have it go through LOCE for punctuation and prose, and ask someone to assist with going over references before FAC. I appreciate your time and input, Bzuk. --Moni3 (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodfellas[edit]

I've cleaned up this article considerably and aside from beefing up the Lead paragraph, would like any comments or suggestions towards promoting this article to GA status. Thanks! --J.D. (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bzuk The article is generally well-written, comprehensive and interesting to the reader. The following refer to minor issues:

  • Is there any textual (authoritative) sources that can be included in a bibliography?
  • There is some inconsistency in the use of both ISO and m-d-y formats
  • The very large soundtrack sections may be best placed in a sub-article

For now... Bzuk (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Eyes Without a Face[edit]

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

I've listed this article for review as i've done a lot of research for it and I can't think of anything more to add. I'd like to give it one quick peer review again before nominating for a GA. Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bull Durham[edit]

I've put a lot of work into this article and cleaned up considerably. I would greatly appreciate any comments or suggestions that would help in promoting it up to GA status. Thanks!--J.D. (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the information about who the characters are based on could be moved to the cast section. It's kind of hard to read in the intro paragraph about the plot. Be careful about quoting the Internet Movie Database on some parts of the film as that's not usually considered a viable source as it's info is usually user submitted from anonymous sources. It's looking really good so far though! Perhaps expand the cast section as well? Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Bzuk Generally well-written and interesting account. I would address only one minor concern and that is inconsistencies in using ISO and m-d-y formats. More to come later. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article for a peer review because all three POTC films are Good Articles, and since Dead Man's Chest is probably the most developed one, it would be nice to know what could be improved before nominating it for the FA. Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 23:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dor (film)[edit]

This article recently achieved a GA status without any objections whatsoever. I've thoroughly developed the article in its comprehensiveness and breadth. I wish to bring it up further on quality and to achieve this, I request reviewers to please comment on what areas to focus upon. Thanks for your time. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Smell of Success[edit]

This is a famous, often quoted, highly regarded film that I've been working on in the hopes of bumping it up to GA status. Any comments and/or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. --J.D. (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Bzuk Since the film in question is a landmark film, are there any textual references that can be added to the sources used? Otherwise, as in J.D.'s other work, a finely written piece, that sets a neutral tone and has adequate if not overwhelming reference sources. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

You Only Live Twice (film)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's a Good Article.

Thanks, Ultra! 08:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Why year in parentheses after the title?
  • Four paras in lead probably one too many for this length...
  • $111M - why M and which $?
  • British English please!
  • Image captions are all fragments so remove full stops.
  • Expand Cast section to tell us more about the characters.
  • Numbers below 10 are written out in full.
  • " The 45 meter (120′)" - use the {{convert}} template.
  • Merge paras in the Fliming section, a few too short paras for me.
  • "kamikaze device " - link kamikaze.

Enough from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bzuk (talk · contribs)
  • Second paragraph of the lead is unnecessary as it is part of the plot sysnopsis
  • Third paragraph of lead has "and has been parodied greatly" which requires a word choice change, suggestion: "and has been greatly parodied" or "and has often been parodied" or "and has been the subject of numerous parodies."
  • Plot can be pruned as it tends to relate scene-by-scene which is excessive
  • Spelling derivation: "make-up" often written as "makeup"
  • Dates written in ISO format as well as m-d-Year, choose one, suggestion: use the popular format of m-d-y throughout since it was already established in the article first.
  • Minor variances in references; could use a bibliography listing as a number of citations are page only and the full bibliographical notation can be used.

...for now, Bzuk (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The Living Daylights[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's a Good Article.

Thanks, Ultra! 08:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Link " MI6 " in the lead.
  • "of an actual Ian Fleming" need of "actual" here?
  • Editing by in the infobox is missing.
  • Bond and Milovy image caption is fragment so remove full stop. Same with the other screengrabs.
  • Expand characters, particularly for the non-regulars.
  • Punctuation in characters section needs work. Full stops...
  • "Originally the film was proposed to be a prequell in the series. But the idea was dropped. SMERSH's motto "Smiert Spionon" From the short story formed the storyline.[2]" - typos, short sentences, sort this out...
  • Casting section has a number of short paragraphs, flow these together to improve the prose.
  • "The film was shot at the Pinewood Studios at its 007 Stage in UK, as well as Weissensee in Austria. The pre-title sequence was filmed on the Rock of Gibraltar. Other locations included Germany, the United States, and Italy. The desert scenes were done in Morocco. The conclusion of the film included the Schönbrunn Palace, Vienna and Elveden Hall, Suffolk." citations needed. Same for last para of Filming, it's entirely uncited.
  • "The Living Daylights was the final Bond film to be scored by composer John Barry. The soundtrack is notable for its introduction of sequenced electronic rhythm tracks overdubbed with the orchestra - at the time, a relatively new innovation." no citations.
  • Last para of Music is uncited.
  • Five external links seems excessive.

That's it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bzuk (talk · contribs)
  • Use of numbers, zero to nine written out as words, 10 and up as numerals
  • Delete use of Harvard comma throughout in the use of listing details (one, two and three rather than one, two, and three)
  • Does casting belong with cast section or production, this is unclear
  • All the endnotes are written incorrectly as to dates (use of ISO dating rather than m-d-y already established, all author notes should appear last name, first and middle name and period)

That's enough changes for now but work is needed. Bzuk (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Die Another Day[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's a Good Article. Thanks, Ultra! 08:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Explain CGI before abbreviating it.
  • Robert Wade in infobox is a dab.
  • Explain NSA before abbreviating it. Same with HALO and WMD.
  • British English should be used so pressurisation not pressurization etc...
  • Surfing image caption is a fragment so no need for a full stop.
  • "The cut happened as requested," - was made?
  • "...was voted 9th out of 22 and was voted..." reads clumsily.
  • Three citations in the References to other films section is insufficient.
  • The whole of "advertising campaign" section needs help with spelling, WP:HEAD, WP:CITE etc..
  • Link Royal Albert Hall.
  • "On the very first day" spot the redundant word.
  • References should use {{cite web}} and not be raw urls.

That should help a bit on the way to something like FAC... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Bzuk (talk · contribs)

Interesting article, generally well written but major issues with referencing formats, not only use of bare urls, lack of author notes, mix of dating styles. Contact me for assistance. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The World Is Not Enough[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's a Good Article.

Thanks, Ultra! 08:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)[edit]

A few pointers - it's a good starting point for FA though...

  • Check external links, a least one dead one when I checked this.
  • "(released in 1999)" no need for the parentheses.
  • Don Black in the infobox points at a dab page.
  • The Cast section could be expanded a bit to talk more about the characters.
  • "James Bond(007):" space missing, and this sentence needs a full stop.
  • Moneypenny and R's description need full stops.
  • Image:Renard Elektra.png does not have a fair use rationale for use in this article.
  • Sub image caption is a fragment so doesn't need full stop.
  • "rumored" - okay, since this is a British film about a British secret agent I would advocate the use of British English.
  • "The actual working title, as with all 007 movies was Bond 19 as it is always "Bond" followed by which number this Bond movie is." working title explanation ought to be introduced earlier and this sentence is clumsy.
  • Try not to wedge text between images per WP:MOS#Images.
  • Adaptations has only one references but makes a number of claims.

That's it for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bzuk (talk · contribs)
  • the term "(released in 1999)" should not be in parenthesis, usually only the date; not even sure why release date is mentioned, that is understood
  • Phrase "highest grossing James Bond film at that time" need a new word choice, "to date" suggested.
  • Plot should identify all characters by actor as in James Bond (Pierce Brosnan)
  • Referencing variances throughout with inconsistency in dates, names
  • The Rough Guide to James Bond, Death Rays, Jet Packs, Stunts & Supercars: The Fantastic Physics of Film's Most Celebrated Secret Agent and Film Fatales: Women in Espionage Films and Television, 1962-1973 should all appear as part of a bibliography not in the endnotes

That's it for now, generally well-written but minor revisions are required. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The High and the Mighty (film)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a comprehensive and thoroughly researched film article that is written in a neutral but encyclopedia manner.


Thanks, Bzuk (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

SGGH I suggest:

  • move citation one to the end of the sentence.
  • I would put the plot summary in the lead before the part about John Wayne and the oscars, which I would have at the end of the lead.
  • The image caption, (from a screenshot) is not, I don't think, necessary
  • "souls on board" I can't find a reason for this phrase other than it being a quote from something, couldn't it just be passengers? ahh I see now, but perhaps explain that at the first mention of "souls on board"
  • Passengers needs a colon after it
  • With each character name in bold, and each actors name not wikilinked, and with the text coming out straight after, it can be difficult in casual reading to pick out the actors names, perhaps highlight them some way.
  • From cite 4 in the plot section until the cast section there are no citations, you may have left something uncited that needs to be.
  • Good use of images
  • "Casting problems plagued the production" is there a cite for this or is it in the [7] citing the following sentence.
  • Bob Cummings, the "Bob" doesnt need the "" I don't think
  • risky "theme" concept project, again with the "" this is a bit difficult to understand, why the ""?

The remainder seems fine, good stuff. Hope you find these comments helpful. SGGH speak! 12:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Dolls (film)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to submit this article for GA, and possibly FA.

Thanks, Starczamora (talk) 09:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No responses yet, eh? Well, a couple quick suggestions... first, you'll want to expand the lead as per WP:LEAD to around three paragraphs. I'd also suggest renaming the "Plot" section. It makes me question whether this is really a documentary or not. Also, look at your in-line citations. There are a couple sentences that are followed with two cites (I call it "cite-cruft") where it's not needed. Doubling citations really should only be for potentially controversial information - a DVD release date doesn't seem controversial to me. I'd also recommend you ask for a specific peer review from Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies. Best of luck! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: (after edit conflict) Overall interesting and well done - I think it is pretty close to GA status. Some suggestions:

  • Expand the lead per WP:LEAD, for example the Reception section is not mentioned here at all, but the lead should summarize the article.
  • A copyedit is needed.
    • One example He urges her to learn Hebrew by reciting a poem written by Yehuda Amichai, while he basks in Sally's warmth and wit.[7] Since he (Chaim) has lost his voice, he can not be reciting it, but the sentence as written is unlcear as to who is reciting (Sally).
    • There are other places that need some polish / grammar corrections. In contrast, when the Paper Dolls were arranged for an audition at TLV—the largest nightclub in Tel Aviv—the booker instead relegated them as geishas who bow by the entrance and were described as "unprofessional" and "fit only for a bus stop".[9][10] This is a run-on sentence and not grammatical. Perhaps In contrast, after the Paper Dolls were hired at TLV—the largest nightclub in Tel Aviv—instead of performing on stage, the booker relegated them to a role as geishas. They would bow by the entrance and were described as "unprofessional" and "fit only for a bus stop".[9][10]
  • I have not seen the film so I do not know if the "plot" is complete, but it seems as if the description of waht happens in the film could be expanded.
  • Participants section - I would identify each of these people and explain their role in the film. Also explain why some died during filming.
  • Production - can more said on the 6 hour tv production this was made from? Was it also called Paper Dolls?
  • Relesases and Reception seem well done - perhaps identify the three Paper Dolls in the image (wearing newspaper dresses)
  • references 2 and 5 do not have complete information (all internet refs should have date accessed, publisher, author if known and title).

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homerun (film)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have finished writing this article and will soon take it to GAN. Any and all feedback on how I can improve the article is appreciated.

Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dihydrogen Monoxide[edit]

  • "shares the same storyline" - it can't be identical. Perhaps "a similar storyline"?
Addressed during our rewrite of the lead. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This comedy emphasises" - you should specifically state what the genres are, before into plot detail, IMO
Addressed, see above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I am surprised that this article does not exist. One day, I might write an article about all our disputes with our northern neighbours. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For now, can it redirect to somewhere on Singapore or Malaysia? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link now points to Foreign relations of Singapore#Malaysia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Released in cinemas on 7 August 2003" - wlink dates
All dates wikilinked. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neo and his wife were moved to" - you might want to name him in full here for those who skip the lead
Changed by someone else. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspaper titles in refs need to be in italics
All newspaper titles in references italicised --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on a budget of S$1.5 million." - wlink currency
All currencies wikilinked. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Having earned $110 300 from sneak previews" - again, and later in sentence
Done, see above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The child actors' school commitments made the planning of reshoots difficult" - no need for the redlink here
Wikilink removed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 7 August 2003," - wlink date again
Done, see above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "released Homerun on 37 screens" - what does on 37 screens mean?
Changed "screens" to "theatres". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition, one of Kiat Kun's" - in addition not necessary
"In addition" removed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over the right to draw water from the kampung well.[1][13][14][15]" - do you need 4 refs for this?
In my opinion, important facts, such as this, and the Golden Horse victory, should have multiple references. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, but four isn't necessary. You don't need to have four reliable sources reporting one fact; that's just silly. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed one of the references, as it was over-used and only mentioned that fact in one sentence. The other references went into greater detail. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "comparing Singapore’s disclosure of letters between the two countries to "revealing letters sent to one's girlfriend"" - you don't need to quote this, it's the same as the last quote
Haemo says you're wrong. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 12 September 2007" - date (WP:DATE)
Done, see above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Malaysian censors announced their decision to ban the screening of Homerun in Malaysia,[14][15][16] citing scenes which "are easily interpreted by some Malaysian audiences’ [sic] as containing political elements related to current issues".[15] Raintree filed an appeal,[14][15][16] " - do you need the 3 cites for both sentences?
See above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Best New Performer award with Wang Baoqiang of Blind Shaft.[24][25][26]" - does this need 3 refs?
See above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting read. Hope to see a FAC in the not-too-distant future. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough review. I have addressed some of your concerns and will address the rest (and Delldot's) later. Now I have to rush to my Maths lecture. Junior college life is hectic! Unfortunately, I doubt you'll see an FAC in the not-too-distant future. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no hurry; good luck! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delldot[edit]

Very nicely done. I'll be incredibly picky here and you can ignore anything that's off base.

  • Not sure whether award-winning needs a hyphen.
I believe it does, but will ask my copy-editors. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haemo says having the hyphen and not having the hyphen are both acceptable. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "shares the same" is redundant.
Addressed during our rewrite of the lead (see below). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to link to common words like shoe, only material related to the content of the article or something someone might need to look up, like a rare word or concept.
The shoes are a key element of the plot. Though, if you insist, I can remove the wikilinks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That does not look like an Easter egg link, as the "Seperation" section of the Singapore in Malaysia article is about (you guessed it) Singapore's seperation from Malaysia. Perhaps I should modify the link to go directly to the "Seperation" section, instead of the top of the article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dihydrogen Monoxide also mentioned this in his review above; see my response to his comment. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Link changed, see my response to Dihydrogen Monoxide. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cinema is a dab link, so maybe check the article for others. Again, I don't know if you need to link common words like this, though this one is more related.
Done. The link now points to cinema (place). I checked the rest of the article for links to disambiguation pages, but did not find any. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Every day, the cast woke up early to reach the filming location, exhausting themselves with the long commute and the many running scenes they had to shoot.[7] The child actors' school commitments made the planning of reshoots difficult;[1] moreover, the production team decided to delay post-production work in Thailand due to the SARS outbreak." This is a very long sentence, and I don't know if the two thoughts are closely related enough for a semicolon. I'd use a full stop. Plus, that way you can avoid pesky mid-sentence refs. Also, I think moreover is one of those redundant words list at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Eliminating redundancy (also, also is another one :-P).
Linking words may be redundant, but they are sometimes needed to make the sentences flow better. How about: "Due to the SARS outbreak, the production team decided to delay post-production work in Thailand. The child actors' school commitments also made the planning of reshoots difficult." --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title of the movie should be italicized.
It was in all but two instances. Both unitalicised instances of "Homerun" have now been italicised. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link full dates, e.g. 7 August 2003 -> 7 August, 2003. But don't link just years by themselves, except when it's relevant to the article (which is rare).
Done. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then a record for a Singaporean film" maybe "at the time" instead of "then".
Changed per your suggestion. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kiat Kun and his friends strike a bargain with Beng Soon to play on the team using the other boys' football shoes, in exchange for helping the other boys cheat on their homework." This sentence is a little confusing, since it's not clear who the "other boys" are in the two cases, but I don't know how you'd fix it.
In that sentence, the "other boys" refer to Beng Soon and his friends. In the last sentence of that paragraph, the "other boys" refer to Kiat Kun and his friends. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed one instance of "the other boys'" to "their". Hopefully that should make it clearer who we are referring to. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...kick Kiat Kun and his friends off the team." this sounds too informal. "For good" and "biggest" are others.
Changed "kick...off" to "remove...from", "the agreement is eventually terminated for good" to "they eventually give up on reaching an agreement" and "the biggest" to "achieving the most successful". Are all of these fine? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite the bad blood between himself and Kiat Kun, Beng Soon decides to arrange a new deal with Kiat Kun, but under more onerous terms. Kiat Kun's initial joy turns to dismay when he realises that the shoes are too large." This is a little confusing, because the first sentence doesn't mention shoes. I guess the reader can infer that the new deal's probably also going to involve shoes, but you might want to specify. If it's basically the same thing, you could say "...renew the deal, but under more onerous terms."
Done. Changed to "renew the deal, but under more onerous terms". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This concern is now outdated, as Haemo and I have rewritten the Plot section (see below). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the rich boy feels slighted and threatens to throw the shoes away in a fit of pique." I think you could do away with "in a fit of pique", since the earlier part of the sentence made it clear how he felt.
I removed "in a fit of pique" per your suggestion. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This causes the boys to get into an argument..." You should avoid starting sentences with this if possible, since it's not always going to be clear what this refers to.
Changed to "As a result, the boys get into an argument..." Is this grammatically correct? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...but trips on a stone and finishes first, with Beng Soon ending in third place..." According to this, "Using 'with' as an additive link leads to wordy and awkward prose." He recommends using a semicolon instead.
Changed the comma to a semi-colon and "with Beng Soon ending in third place" to "Beng Soon ends the race in third place". Is this fine? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unfortunately, he was sick..." Unfortunately sounds like the article is offering commentary, and I don't see how it adds anything. But might work. Also, my instinct would be to go for "he had been sick" rather than "he was", but you might want to see how FA articles on movies do it.
I already started two sentences in the Plot section with "However" and used the word "but" five times in that section. Hence I used "Unfortunately" to avoid repeating words. Would you like to suggest a better word or phrase? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scartol changed it to "Because he was sick..." --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While Kiat Kun is running, Mrs Chew goes into labour, leading Seow Fang to run across across a long path littered with broken glass to find a midwife." maybe use forcing instead of leading here?
Changed per your suggestion. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Finally, Mrs Chew gives birth to a healthy little baby boy and Beng Soon gives Kiat Kun and Seow Fang new pairs of shoes before going to study in England." This last sentence is such a departure from the rest of the plot that I'd almost say to have it as a separate paragraph. On the other hand, short and one sentence paragraphs are discouraged unless you're really emphasizing something. Reading this sentence, I was like, "Whaa? I thought Beng Soon had just thrown away the pair of shoes he'd won out of spite. Why the change of heart?" This might just be a movie thing though. In other news, I don't think the word "little" is necessary here, unless there's something notable about his size. Plus, little is a little informal.
Good point. I will see how I can tweak the sentence. By the way, I removed the word "little" per your suggestion. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could probably cut the plot section down a little or flesh the other sections out.
Haemo and I have rewritten parts of the Plot section; some of your concerns were also addressed during that rewrite. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cast section is a little sparse. Could it be integrated into another section? Isn't all this information already in the plot section?
The mentions of the actors in the Plot section are not referenced, while the Cast section contains a reference. I would make a longer and more comprehensive Cast section if I could find a reference for it (other than IMDB, of course). I Not Stupid achieved GA status despite having a Cast list similar to that in Homerun (film). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Singapore's situation in 1965 to that of 2003" sounds awkward because of the in/of use.
  • "as well as the threat of terrorism in the new millenium." I don't get this. How do the riots highlight that?
To be honest, I am not completely sure. Perhaps the chaos and social unrest caused by the riots parellel those caused by terrorism. That tidbit is taken from a quote by executive producer Daniel Yun, which was published in my reference, a newspaper article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the deal Beng Soon reneged on" ends in a preposition. Sorry, just being picky here.
  • Some of the info under Political commentary isn't really commentary, it's just about stuff that's happening at the time. Maybe you could rename the section to something like "Political context", or "Political context and commentary" or something. I don't know whether it's a good idea or not, maybe discuss it on the talk page.
That section used to be named "Political satire"; I remamed it to "Political commentary" as not all the commentary was satirical. Most of the allusions are not "context". Are you suggesting I change the name to the overly long "Political context, commentary and satire"? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the last paragraph under "Political commentary", about the banning in Malaysia, might go better under "Reception".
The Malaysian censors decided to ban the movie because of its political satire, not because it was a bad movie, so I think that the paragraph about the ban belongs in the "Political commentary" section. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Best Theme Song (拥有)" is showing up as two question marks on my screen. Is this foreign characters that I don't have the software for, or is it really two question marks? If it's the latter, what's that about?
They are Chinese characters. Perhaps you should install the Chinese language pack. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In contrast, FilmsAsia reviewer Soh Yun-Huei panned its use of political satire, which she felt '[causes] the film to be devoid of innocence and replaced with a sense of agenda and manipulation'." You can probably do away with the in contrast. Also, you might be able to move the causes outside of the quote to avoid having to use brackets. Maybe change the tense to caused.
I use linking words like "in contrast" to vary my sentence structures. If there is a better way to do so, please let me know. Changing the tense to caused would not help, as the tense in the review is causing, but I will consider moving the word outside of the quote. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some print refs have no author listed. Some refs have the date in parentheses and some don't.
If the references do not have an author listed, it is because Factiva did not contain information about the author. Blame my copy-editor Haemo for the inconsistent positioning of dates; he was the one who helped me format the references. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, very well done. I told you I'd be incredibly picky :-P Definitely let me know if you have questions or want to discuss anything. delldot talk 11:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough and picky review. I have addressed some of your concerns and responded to several others. A few of your concerns will be addressed when Haemo (my copy-editor) and I go through the article again. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All but four of your concerns have been addressed. The rest will be dealt with when I next chat with Haemo on Google Talk. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, one more thing: I don't think it's necessary to link to the IMDB in both the infobox and the external links section. At least, medical articles aren't supposed to link to eMedicine in both places, which strikes me as analogous. delldot talk 12:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commas added. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda[edit]

  • Might want to take out the links of pages which do not exist and avoid using "it" when a proper noun can be used instead. miranda 00:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jayron32[edit]

Looks like lots of other have got here before me. I will try to add something new to the discussion. No particular order or importance on these fixes. Just adding them as I come across them:

  • My spelling isn't all that great, but run Satirises through a spellchecker. Isn't it Satirizes? Satiryzes? Maybe its right, but it looks funny to me... I could be wrong tho...
  • Also, is the film really satire? Not all political commentary or allegory is satire, which usually implies a humourous or absurdist slant on things. I have not seen the film, but if it IS satire, such analysis should be a tad more clear in the article.
  • The redlinks should probably be stubbified in some way. Most of these may be good articles, but consider doing a little cursory research to perhaps get at least one good reference and create a stub for each of them.

Overall, the article is quite good, and I would consider it GA quality in its current state! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow Never Dies[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…


Thanks, Vikrant 07:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Overall a well-written, good article that seems close to FA standards. It may help to have a FA model article to follow (with the large number of Bond films, is one FA already?). Here are some comments for improvement:

  • Lead seems a bit short, and the "opened the same day as Titanic" nugget is not in the article, but should be (and should be sourced). See WP:LEAD
  • There are a few places that could use some polish / copy editing.
    • Need a word added here: M sends Bond to investigate Carver after Carver Media releases news with critical details hours before these have become [widely? publicly?] known,...
    • Run-on sentence: Bond captures Gupta to use as his own hostage, but Carver kills Gupta, claiming he has outlived his contract, but Bond leads a large battle against the crew and Stamper, and Carver is killed by his own sea drill after trying to kill Bond on his own.
  • Could this be made more specific: As had been the case previously, with no Ian Fleming novels remaining unadapted, an entirely original story was required.? i.e. somehow say which film (and give the year) was the last to be made from an original Ian Fleming novel?
  • Casting section has very short paragraphs - could these be comined? Also this sentence makes no sense (unless SPottiswoode also has his own insurance company): She reputedly wanted to perform her own stunts, but was prevented because director Spottiswoode ruled it too dangerous and uninsured.[15][16]
  • Ref 4 - is IMdB considered a reliable source? Ref 37 is partly broken (template).

These are fairly nit-picky, hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond (film series)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…


Thanks, Vikrant 07:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: I like what is here, but felt the article still could use some work and additional material to be more complete. Specific suggestions:

  • There are very few images - how about some of the different actors who have portrayed Bond?
  • The Lead is a bit short for an article of this length, see WP:LEAD
  • Development section seems to have major holes in its coverage - there are more words in the one sentence on the first choice to play Bond (The winner of the contest was a 28-year-old model named Peter Anthony, who, according to Broccoli, had a Gregory Peck quality, but proved unable to cope with the role.[5]) than there is about the iconic and first Bond actor (The producers turned to Sean Connery for five films.) with no mention at all of George Lazenby or Connery's return. Instead after one sentence on Connery we jump from 1961 to 1983 and to Roger Moore, who is first mentioned as already wanting to leave the series.
  • The whole non-EON Bond films matter should be better incorporated into the article - as it is most of the article is told chronologically, then we skip back to talk about Casino Royale and Never Say Never Again (and how did EON get the Casino Royale name back for the most recent, reboot film?).
  • I am surprised there is not a section on villains - some (Blofeld, Jaws) have been in more than one film.
  • The Reception section needs expansion - what do critics think of Bond in general? Which films were seen as best or worst by critics?
  • The whole Avengers part of the Influence on films and television section seems underreferenced and thus seems to possibly be original research - it also seems to have too much weight relative to its importance. How about the Bond films' influences on other popular spy series of the 60s and 70s and later (Man from UNCLE, Get Smart, I Spy, the Dean Martin spy movies (name escapes me), Austin Powers)? Other examples given are under refrenced (or not cited at all).
  • Video games section is on one game - surely there have been others?
  • References 5, 31, and 32 are incomplete.

Again, I liked what I read, learned some things, and think this is a good effort, but it still has some major improvements needed. Hpe this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aliens (film)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have recently re-written this article in its entirety and hope to take it to FAC in due time. It's currently at GAC and any comments would be appreciated. Thanks, M3tal H3ad (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferMorgan[edit]

"Over 3000 people were auditioned for roles in the United Kingdom, although many were rejected." - Do you mean that the 3000 people were UK residents, or that auditions were held in the UK and actors of whichever nationality auditioned in that country? LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK residents, thanks for spotting that out. How are you these days? :] M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I wanted to comment as this had not received much feedback. I read the article and was quite impressed, but here are a few suggestions for improvement. I like the current lead, but according to WP:LEAD it should be four paragraphs (for the length of the article). My rule of thumb is that if it is a section or subsection in the article, it should at least be mentioned in the lead. I also noticed there are a number of units which are given as one system only (feet, tonnes) and should really be in both metric and english untis per the MOS. My last question concerns the references - if you are going for FAC (and I think it is quite close as it is), then some of the references do not seem to meet the requirements of WP:CITE. Specifically there are a series of refs which are just a cryptic title: i.e. Ref 7 "57 Years Later - Continuing the story", also refs 12 - 15 and 18. My guess is that these are referring to chapters in a DVD on the making of the film, but that needs to be made much more explicit. Hope this helps - I don't have much more to say becasue I think it is very good already, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antitrust (film)[edit]

I effectively re-wrote the article, and am pleased with its current state. I'd like to think it could make it to A-class or GA-level, but I haven't worked on a film article to this extent before and would like this WikiProject's input on what I've done and any improvements I can make. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good start, but I think that it will require a fair bit of work to bring it to GA status or beyond. Here are some suggestions:
  1. The infobox should not have references - it generally is for straightforward facts. Anything possibly controversial or challengeable probably should be discussed in more detail in the text, with appropriate references.
  2. There is no need to cite the film itself when discussing plot information which is easily found by watching the film.
  3. The lead should briefly summarize the reception.
  4. The plot section should be somewhat more in-depth and include the ending. While it shouldn't be too long (see the project style guidelines for an idea on length), it should probably touch on more of the characters involved, considering the number of cast mentioned.
  5. Cast should be limited to the most relevant to the plot and should not be comprehensive. Generally, if the cast member isn't mentioned in the plot, then it may be worth questioning their inclusion.
  6. Neither the IMDb nor Yahoo Movies is a reliable source. Furthermore, self-reference to sources within the article text (specifically the cast section) is generally inappropriate.
  7. The allusions should be within the Reception section, as they are critical interpretation of the film and not part of the plot itself.
  8. Reception could be further fleshed out with more excerpts from noted critics which address many of the commonly-believed strengths and weaknesses of the film.
  9. Production needs to go into much further depth, preferably with detail from all major production departments as relevant and sourceable.
  10. A Development and/or Pre-Production section probably is also in order with information as to the genesis of the project, what the original concepts were, how and when names were attached to the major positions, any stumbling blocks, stallings, or dropouts, etc.
  11. The Cast section should briefly encapsule each character as well as discuss specific real-world context for the actor such as character development, research, or casting information.

I'd also recommend looking at several of our FA-class articles to get an idea for how a featured article on a film is structured and composed. Look forward to seeing the article come along! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry!, despite watching this page, I still missed your edits. I verily appreciate your input, please don't think I wasn't paying attention. I'm generally working through your suggestions linearly (and not all at once, Real Life™ and all) and will reply here periodically.

Before I'd even seen your reply here, I decided that as long as all the information in the infobox was used and duly cited elsewhere, it didn't need to clutter the infobox itself. Details such as the music, editor, distributor, and running time aren't well integrable into the prose such as it stands; but in line with the policy on verifiability I want all of that information cited/sourced (not delving into the reliability of the sources under discussion just now). If not citing those factoids in-line, how would you recommend I be able to associate given information with its reliable source?

An aside, I realize these peer review pages are for these purposes, but why do they take place on a separate page as opposed to the articles' talk pages? That would keep discussion with the article where it can arguably belong, and to keep the WikiProject appraised either the discussions could be transcluded here, or tagging the article for PR could categorize it in some notifying fashion? Just curious. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the review is linked within the project banner, so it should be accessible through the talk page. As for the citations on the infobox for those particular fields, I will remind you that WP:V says that reliable sources are only required for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I write effectively challenging myself on everything as I go; if I can't reliably source and cite something, I won't include it. Self-challenging, if you will. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I slightly rewrote the lede to mirror the structure of the article, and touched on the film's reception; would you look at that? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of disaster films[edit]

Currently the List of disaster films is being updated and heavily edited. I would like to know how the list is looking, and if it is more useful than it had been prior to my edits.

prior to my edits my latest edit

I used the article on disaster for the headings on this list. - LA @ 21:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list looks inclusive however I think a table format would be better. The long list down the page with the wasted space on the right hand side yielding minimal information is not an ideal way to enjoy a list like this. Perhaps similar to the ones used here Adventure_films_of_the_1930s then you could group them together by large category and then add finer detail in the individual notes. Would you like help in formatting? I am very quick at massaging data. EraserGirl (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia (film)[edit]

This was a highly regarded film when it was released in 1999, dividing critics and is an important milestone in Paul Thomas Anderson's career. I have added a considerable amount of production and reception info to this article and would like any other suggestions or comments to improve it to GA status. Thanks. --J.D. (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone smarter than me will have to discuss how to write the plot section, but I do recommend WP:LEAD, and fleshing out the stuff on themes. Alientraveller (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belovedfreak[edit]

I think this is a hard film to write an article about, and also a difficult article to review because of the complexities of the film, but I'll give it a go.

  • I would get rid of the flag in the infobox (WP:FLAG)
  • The lead needs expanding and needs to summarise the whole article per WP:LEAD.

Overview

  • "narrated by an uncredited Ricky Jay" - needs citation
  • I think that the description of the introduction is perhaps a little too long. "The events, which are well-known urban legends in the universe of the film" - needs citation - how do we know that these three stories are urban legends? Also, the one about Sir Edmund William Godfrey appears to based on a true story, not an urban legend.
  • "while Aimee Mann's version of Harry Nilson's "One" plays in the background:" - I'm not sure that mentioning the song really adds anything to the plot summary.
  • the character relationships table - it is helpful, but I think it borders on original research. The significance of the things that the characters have in common is open to interpretation.
  • sentences like "implying that the unlikely connections" and "Another explanation could be..." definitely seem like OR.

Cast

  • MOS:FILM and it's talkpage seem to favour a list over a table for cast sections. It might be better to try to incorporate some of the cast info elsewhere in the article into the cast section.

Reception

  • the sentence about Rotten Tomatoes' rating says "currently" - could be replaced with "As of..." to avoid it becoming out of date.

Themes

  • "Many essays and other writings..." - I see this has been mentioned on the talkpage. Which essays? If these many essays etc are reliable, they need to be mentioned and used as sources for the article. If they're not reliable, they shouldn't be mentioned at all.
  • Needs at least one more citation - for the last sentence
  • Could do with being expanded, maybe using the "many essays", perhaps moving some of the earlier discussion about Biblical references down to this section.

DVD

  • What region DVD are you talking about? Are these special features available on all regions?
  • This section could do with some info about DVD release / distribution.
  • This section needs citations.

External links

  • I don't think the Arts & faith link is really necessary.
  • The cigarettes and red vines site - is this a fansite? Does it add to the article? Is it reliable? Can info from it be incorporated into the article? I haven't had much of a look at it - it does seem reasonable though.

Anyway, good work so far - I hope this helps. --BelovedFreak 12:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Compass (film)[edit]

Seems to me a pretty good article already... I've nominated it for GA, just wanted to see if anyone else would like to comment. Thanks, Mdiamante (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Overall, it's looking very solid, and certainly most of the hard work has been done. Well done! A few points, though:
1. In the lead, unlink the film series (which is currently a circular link). I'd also rewrite, since there is (at the moment) no confirmation of any further films.
2. Some of the real-world information may need tense changes to the past tense, as the film has been released. (Note that the plot summary, however, should remain consistently in the present tense, per MOS.)
3. book's perceived anti-Christian and atheistic themes - correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Pullman openly admitted these biases? If so, the "perceived" should be dropped - it's not POV to state this as fact if the author confirms it.
4. The cast parentheticals in the plot summary section should be dropped, as the cast section handles this function. See the style guidelines for further information.
5. The plot summary is filled with run-ons, dangling phrases, and other sentences which appear muddled, awkward, or grammatically incorrect. This could use a good copy edit. (See the League of Copy Editors, if necessary.)
6. The cast section could use some beefing up with more information for most of the names, both describing the character and the casting, with references. Asriel's entry is distressingly brief, considering that he's a central character.
7. Discussion of the abrupt ending should probably not be in the development section, but instead be moved to concentrate the topic together either at Reception or an independent section regarding the ending.
8. The title section is really not germane to the film directly - it is more appropriate for the article on the book and book series - all that need be mentioned in the film's article is that the title was taken from the American book release, with a passing mention to the UK title. This is already done in the lead.
9. Production section needs a great deal more coverage, and more equitably spread between the various departments. Given the prior stature of the source material, the large budget, wide PR campaign, and recent release, there should be no difficulty finding references for this.
10. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that second unit and plate shots began well before principal photography.
11. Another thing worth looking into that I remember is that the production had originally chosen to shoot on the Panavision Genesis camera before even settling on a DP. (This is precisely why Henry Braham was hired, since he had prior experience on Flyboys.) However, after tests with both the Genesis and 35mm film, even though Braham preferred to use the Genesis, the studio insisted on film. It was shot on Fujifilm, and I'm certain that their UK-based magazine Exposure has some discussion of this. Some of the more recent issues are on their UK website.
12. The fansite speculation on the extended cut is not a reliable source and should be deleted.
I look forward to seeing how it develops! Good editing, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Lebowski[edit]

This film has quite a dedicated cult following and is a highly regarded comedy. I've cleaned up this article considerably but it could definitely use some more work and I would love to have any comments or suggestions that could help raise this article to GA status. --J.D. (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)[edit]

I've just got the DVD of this monumental classic--and hopefully I'm not alone when I know this is actually turning 70...this Friday! Sorry if I can't get back to quicken this up any further till the New Year, but suggestions from the WP community are welcome. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 19:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wild at Heart (film)[edit]

A lot of work has gone into this article to improve it with the hopes of achieving a GA status soon. Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. --J.D. (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belovedfreak[edit]

Good work so far, J.D. Here are a few thoughts:

Infobox

  • Under "stars" I would just have Cage and Dern, since they are the names that appear on the poster.
  • I would lose the flag icons per WP:MOSFILM.
  • Add the realease date for Australia, as it's an English-speaking country too. And it would be great if you could find release dates for Canada, UK, NZ... Although, I don't know if the fact that they're not on imdb means that the film didn't get a theatrical release in those countries.

Images

  • The screenshots you have used need to state on the image page where you gt them from. The one of Lynch & Dafoe is presumably not from the film itself, yet appears to be. You may run into trouble trying to get this to GA or FA if you don't demonstrate exactly why these images are important to the article. They should really illustrate some critical commentary or something from the film, not just illustrate the film itself.

Lead

  • The lead needs a lot of expansion. It needs to summarise the rest of the article, which it doesn't at the moment. Everything in the lead needs to be expanded on in the article, so there needs to be something about the allusions to The Wizard of Oz — taken from an appropriate source, with references of course.
  • The very first sentence is far too long & unwieldy.

Plot

  • Plot is, I think, a tad on the long side. It only just goes over the guideline in WP:MOSFILMS but could be cut down quite substantially I think without jeopardising relevance & understanding.
  • The sentence beginning "While in jail, Lula has his child..." is slightly confusing. Sounds like Lula has a child while she is in jail. Then "she decides to pick him up" – is she the mother or Lula? I can work out what you mean, but it's a little unclear.
  • "he apologizes for calling the men "homosexuals"..." does he actually say "homosexuals" or are you paraphrasing? I don't think this needs quotation marks.
  • "which looks a lot like Glinda, the Good Witch of The North..." — for a start you're assuming we are all familiar with Glinda, but not everyone will be. Also, you definitely need a citation for this. Someone else needs to have drawn the comparison otherwise it's just your opinion and is original research.

Cast and characters

  • It would be nice to have a mention (whether here or elsewhere) that Diane Ladd is Laura Dern's mother in real life as well as in the film.

Production

  • The sentence with "...that were owned by Dino De Laurentiis when his company went bankrupt..." — did De Laurentiis buy them when his company went bankrupt or were they already owned by him at the time?

Soundtrack

  • Could do with some prose in this section. Any real world info you can find? What kind of reception did it have? At the least, you can put when & by whom it was released. The infobox should be summarising prose in the article.

Reception

  • I would consider splitting this into separate "reception" and "distribution" sections. The bit about achieving an R-rating, for example, isn't really about how the film was received. And maybe put Ladd's nomination together with the bit about the Palm d'Or. Maybe mention the Independent Spirit Awards the film won, and its other nominations?

That's all I can think of for now, hope it helps... --BelovedFreak 19:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons Movie[edit]

Looks to be close to FA. But apparently I'm not allowed to nominate so I'm giving it a PR instead. Buc (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind if you nominate it, I'd just appreciate some notification right before you do, but I'd be glad if you nominated it. But what it really needs now is a copy-edit. Gran2 15:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you think that. Most people on the talk page don't seem to. Buc (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could submit the article to the WikiProject League of Copyeditors and explain that the goal is to achieve Featured Article status? I got an excellent work-over with Fight Club (film) from one of the people involved there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd been meaning to do that for a while, but never got around to it. That is, until now, thanks for the tip. Gran2 18:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've done everything I can to improve the prose. ce isn't one of my strengths though. Buc (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right I think we might need to expand the lead a bit, but we're almost there. Although to make sure the page is more or less complete, I'd leave any nomination until after the award season is over, or at least until the Academy Award nominations; just in case the film does some how beat Ratatouille to any of the Best Animated Film awards. Gran2 16:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead looks fine. It's longer than a lot of existing FA. Buc (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 06:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something else I've thought of. Should there be a mention of the intro for He Loves to Fly and He D'ohs? Buc (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possible, where would it go though? Gran2 08:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cultural references Buc (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is it a cultural reference? Gran2 19:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The whole intro was re-made for this episode and make a lot of references to the movie. Buc (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I know it was... but how is that a cultural reference? That section is for references made during the film. Gran2 15:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Don't cultural reference section nomally cover references made both by the subject and to the subject. Buc (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Not usually, at least not in my experiance, anyway, its an FAC now, so we need to archive this. Gran2 17:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)[edit]

Okay usual PR stuff, its a GA, so I'm aiming for FA at some point in the future (no matter how far it is). Any comments are welcomed: grammer, glaring errors, info that should be included, sourcing etc. Also if you do know of any good info that for some reason isn't included then that's great as well. Thanks. Gran2 18:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a complete newbie to peer review, so please take my comment with a grain of salt.
    The plot section heavily covers the beginning of the movie, but the rest is summarised simply with Harry and his friends, Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley, discover the plot and seek to prevent the theft of the stone, which is hidden in a protected chamber at Hogwarts. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot As this is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement, you should include plot twists and a description of the ending. This guideline also says the plot summary should have between 400 and 700 words. This one currently has 217 words. So just expand the summary of the stuff that happens later on in the film, especially the ending. Good work so far! Puchiko (Talk-email) 23:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll look into it, thanks. Gran2 08:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the bullet pionts in Cast section? Buc (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because that's what cast sections have in most cases... Gran2 11:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then why don't all the roles have them? Buc (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because that's how some cast sections are. The first three cast members have a large paragraph of info, while the rest just have a sentence or so. As such they work better without bullet points. Gran2 20:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. The article really isn't bad :) But some suggestions I have include creating a new section entitled "Casting" under the Production section for all the prose that there currently is under the Cast section. A table or bulleted list can than be made for the actors and their roles. Next, I notice the article lacks a release section. What should be done is this: create a "Distribution" section and combine the marketing information with information on the film's release (i.e. rating, premieres, home video- that one's lacking right now- worldwide release dates, etc.). And finally, change "Reaction" to "Reception" or "Response" as "Reaction" more or less implies critical reaction and not necessarily commerical response, which that section also happens to cover. Otherwise, I think it's excellent! The no erz (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Peer_review/2008&oldid=393219889"