Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Peer review/Dreamgirls (film)

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

Dreamgirls (film)[edit]

How do users make this article an FA? Are the trivia portions necessary? Real96 19:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Cbrown1023 talk[edit]

  • The article seems great!
    • Lots of refs
    • Covers a lot
    • Fair use rationales for images
      • However, you may be using too many fair use images (Wikipedia:Fair use):
        • The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). This includes the original in the Image: namespace. Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.
        • The material must contribute significantly to the article
      • Some of them can stay, but others have to go if you are looking for an WP:FA.
I am confused about the fair use policy regarding images. I will try to merge the facts from the trivia section into the main article. Real96 18:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I incorporated the trivia facts into the article. The trivia fact about Eddie Murphy's films was incorporated into his article. I am confused about the copyrighted work, because the licensing was of the film's screenshot. Real96 19:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-newbie[edit]

Trivia needs to be merged with appropriate areas of the article to help with context. It can't just lie around as a dead stump of information. There isn't any way you could clean the plot? Wiki-newbie 17:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The plot summary as it stands now glosses over a lot. It couldn't really get much tighter than that. --FuriousFreddy 23:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The "Allusions to factual events" is listy and may be interpreted by some as being a trivia section. If you could convert it from being listy to an actual section, cohesive and tied throughout with an intro, middle and end, then this may help. LuciferMorgan 03:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Erikster[edit]

  • There's a Ratings table hanging out in the Plot summary section. Is the table really notable enough for inclusion?
  • "Casting notes" and "Production notes" seem like odd section headings, especially with the latter being under "Production history". Can either of these be renamed?
  • Citation for the Los Angeles premiere (seconds sentence in Reception) would be nice.
  • Maybe I'm being too picky, but I think there should be references for the Awards subsection. The last three paragraphs in that subsection don't appear fully cited.
  • "Related promotions and products" seems oddly placed under Reception, though I don't know where else it could go. I'd suggest re-titling it as "Marketing", maybe.
  • The Cast section is placed so deeply in the article. Why not place it, at the very least, before Reception?
  • Not everything in "Allusions to factual events" is cited. I don't know if this used to be a trivia section, but I agree with the above sentiment that it seems too listy. Re-writing it in prose would be nice.
  • Is it necessary to have such a long main Awards section? I would suggest removing minor awards ("Syracuse Post-Standard"?) and possibly merging the rest of them into the Awards subsection under Reception. Or just make a stand-alone Awards section written in prose. Just my opinion -- the list of awards just seems long to me.
  • I strongly recommend applying the Cite news and Cite web templates to the references in this article. With the template, the fully-exposed links will be linked through the title.
  • I would also recommend, after applying the templates, that you place {{reflist|2}} under Notes to create two columns for the references.

My apologies if I sound too critical; the article is really quite well-done. I remember visiting it a few months ago before the film came out, and I could tell someone was devoting a lot of time to it. Glad to see that it's remained intact ever since. Definitely is approaching FA status. I'll have to actually read the content (just kind of skimmed this time, pointed out structural things) and get back to you on the writing. From what I noticed, all the references and punctuation was in place, which makes me a very happy editor. Cheers, and good luck continuing to build it up. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 22:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)