Wikipedia:Peer review/The Maltese Falcon (1931 film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] The Maltese Falcon (1931 film)
This article has been drastically rewritten recently by an anonymous user who is completely oblivious to the criticisms that have been raised to his edits. When a fellow editor reverted some of the recent changes, and posted a message on the article talk page explaining why he had done so, said anonymous user reverted back to his own changes and responded rather curtly on the talk page "My source is the film, which you apparently have not watched." This was by way of explaining why he had included in the article highly-POV statements as to why the 1931 film is superior to the 1941 version. At this point, I feel the article is very close to worthless because of said POV statements, and is in need of peer review so that it can be rewritten into a real encyclopedia article. ---Charles 02:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think there is anything wrong with expanding the section on the more sexual pre-Hayes nature of the film especially if there was some comparison to the later version, but there are a lot of POV statements and the size of this section is out of proportion with the rest of the article.Yomangani
- I have no objection to a discussion of the "pre-Hayes nature of the film," as you put it. Obviously, that is an important aspect of the film. What I certainly object to is the concentration on the sexual nature of the film to the exclusion of anything else. Furthermore, considering the degree to which this aspect of the film is regarded as so primary, I fail to see how it can be, at the same time, argued that this film is closer to Hammett's novel than the '41 version, when this overtly sexual content is not present in the book. This is a startling contradiction. Oh, and please sign your comments. ---Charles 17:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry about the missing sig (I hadn't had enough coffee). I've edited the page to make it slightly more balanced and NPOV (I hope), but there is still a lot more about the sexual aspects of the film than anything else. The anonymous editor obviously regards it as a classic and superior to the 1941 version; it's a pity they couldn't fill out some more details on other aspects: plot summary,comparisons with the book and later versions, etc. Yomangani 17:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, trust me, I am the same way first thing in the morning---that's why I do not even attempt editing until after noon. As to the issue at hand, I requested peer review because I really wanted other editors to look at the article and tell me if they felt the POV was over the top. I felt it was, and that the anonmymous user concentrated on the sexual aspect to the exclusion of everything else. Admittedly, I am at a disadvantage because, though I've read the book half-a-dozen times, and seen the "classic" 1941 version at least a dozen times, I have never seen the 1931 version. So, to some extent, I have to defer to the opinion of one who has---but, given the description in the article, this film bears almost no resemblance to the book. As I said above, this is puzzling, precisely because the anonymous editor claims the '31 version is more faithful to the book. This seems to be little more than an opinion. I appreciate your comments here, and the work you've done on the article. ---Charles 17:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry about the missing sig (I hadn't had enough coffee). I've edited the page to make it slightly more balanced and NPOV (I hope), but there is still a lot more about the sexual aspects of the film than anything else. The anonymous editor obviously regards it as a classic and superior to the 1941 version; it's a pity they couldn't fill out some more details on other aspects: plot summary,comparisons with the book and later versions, etc. Yomangani 17:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have no objection to a discussion of the "pre-Hayes nature of the film," as you put it. Obviously, that is an important aspect of the film. What I certainly object to is the concentration on the sexual nature of the film to the exclusion of anything else. Furthermore, considering the degree to which this aspect of the film is regarded as so primary, I fail to see how it can be, at the same time, argued that this film is closer to Hammett's novel than the '41 version, when this overtly sexual content is not present in the book. This is a startling contradiction. Oh, and please sign your comments. ---Charles 17:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
