Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The peer review department of the Films WikiProject conducts peer review of articles on request. The primary objective is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement.

The peer review process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality. The process is intended to make marginal and good quality articles to excellent, encyclopedic ones. However, use of a peer review for articles assessed below the Films WikiProject's B-Class may not be a good use of reviewers' time.

Editors with article requests involving significant policy and/or POV concerns or edit wars should use Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and/or Noticeboards (usually Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents) before a peer review.

All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of the Films WikiProject. While there is a general intent to expand this process to allow for review by subject experts, the preparations for this are not yet complete. Please consider reviewing someone else's article too, if you request yours :-)

Contents 1 Instructions 1.1 Requesting a review 1.2 Responding to a request 1.3 Archiving 2 Requests 2.1 The Public Enemy 2.2 Annamayya 2.3 Leaving Las Vegas 2.3.1 Cbrown1023 2.3.2 Supernumerary 2.4 The Little Shop of Horrors (1960 film) 2.4.1 Supernumerary 2.5 "She Shoulda Said 'No'!" 2.5.1 Supernumerary 2.6 Ginger Snaps 2.6.1 Cbrown1023 3 Archives

[edit] Instructions

[edit] Requesting a review

1. Add peer-review=yes to the {{Film}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
2. From there, click on the "request has been made" link that appears in the template. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article.
3. Place === [[Name of nominated article]] === at the top.
4. Below it, write what you hope to gain from a peer review (what are your goals? FA? GA? etc) and sign by using four tildes (~~~~).
5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of requests on this page.
6. Add a link to your article to the beginning of the Peer Review announcement list.

[edit] Responding to a request

Everyone is encouraged to comment on any request listed here. To comment on an article, please add a new section (using ==== [[User:Your name|Your name]] ====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible. You could also choose to just post bullets (*) of suggestions and then post an indented bullet (**) to comment about that suggestion.

[edit] Archiving

Reviews should be archived after they have been inactive for some time, or when the article is nominated as a featured article candidate or the articles "goals" have been met. To archive a review:

1. Replace peer-review=yes with old-peer-review=yes in the {{Film}} project banner template at the top of the article's talk page
2. Move {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} from this page to the current archive page.
3. Remove article from Peer review announcement list

[edit] Requests

[edit] The Public Enemy

I'd like to get it to a GA and would like to know what to expand on. Cbrown1023 21:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Annamayya

I've improved the article and hence expect a better rating.S.GaneshKumar 09:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll upgrade to start, but the real place for requesting an assessment is Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment#Requesting an assessment. :) This is for getting constructive feedback once you reach a B-Class. Cbrown1023 14:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• This article's a bit "young" to be here; it doesn't yet have the teeth needed for teething problems. Bring it back when it's five to ten times that length and you'll get much more useful feedback. As for guidance in constructing a movie article, see a fantastic article such as Blade Runner to get you really running. Seegoon 01:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• But mostly check out the style guidelines. Cbrown1023 04:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leaving Las Vegas

I have followed the style guidelines for this article, and hope to make Leaving Las Vegas a Good Article. I need to make sure that I am on the right track. Thank you, Crzycheetah 03:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Cbrown1023

• Won't pass without a fair user rationale for Image:Leaving Las Vegas DVD cover.jpg. Cbrown1023 03:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Make sure the prose flows well (I noticed a slight stick, but that just may be my reading style versus your writing style...). Cbrown1023 03:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• I've made some changes to the article; things I didn't state here. Cbrown1023 03:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  Thank you.--Crzycheetah 08:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• The article is very short, you could go into more detail on most of the items. Also, remember that the style guidelines are just a basis, it is great if you do more than the guidelines state. Cbrown1023 03:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supernumerary

• Cite web format for sources.
• When was it shot?
• If the character was described in the plot, a description in the cast section is redundant.

  There is more information in the cast section than in the plot. Also, I think that the cast section would look dull without descriptions.--Crzycheetah 08:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  Some of the cast info could be moved to production (like how they researched the parts). Usually the cast section is pretty plain, but I don't think it's a hard and fast rule.--Supernumerary 08:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Formatting issues need to be fixed in the infobox.

  Did Cbrown1023 fix them already? If not, could you point them, please?--Crzycheetah 08:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  Went ahead and made the minor change.--Supernumerary 08:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Avoid weasel words (like arguably).
• Could do with some copyediting.--Supernumerary 03:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Little Shop of Horrors (1960 film)

Famous and important cult film. Any thoughts on the article? (Ibaranoff24 07:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC))

• Reception section? Cbrown1023 03:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Disambiguatrion issues? Too many references to "little shop of horrors" without being clear which version (1960, 1982 musical, 1986) is meant? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You moved it, so I renamed the section... but we don't need to move this page too... Cbrown1023 04:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supernumerary

• Less plot, more summary.
• The lead is supposed to summarize the article, but this lead mentions the sequels, which never appear in the article proper.
• The pictures really help the article, and they are properly licensed. Nice work there.
• Standardize the cast section and move it up to after the plot per the style guidelines.
• Use the cite web format for your sources.
• Consider adding a "See also" section. (Roger Corman was the king of B-movies and should be put there.)
  • Um, try to avoid that... :) It's like a trivia section. A lot of people hate those (and trivia sections) and will be very sad to see it there. (by that I mean fail it for GA or not pass it on FA; they're real sticklers!!). Try to have all the links you need in the article itself. Cbrown1023 03:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• External links should be fleshed out with links to IMDB, rotten tomatoes, etc. Also, google video has the whole film uploaded, which definitely needs to be linked.
  • Make sure that you don't WP:SPAM either. None of the sites Supernumerary listed are "spam", but be aware of it. Cbrown1023 03:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Does the film really star the 15 actors listed in the infobox? The article even says that Nicholson only had a bit part.
  • Second that definately! Cbrown1023 03:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I cut it down to four, if more should be there, re add them. Cbrown1023 03:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Wikilink full dates.
  • only full dates. Cbrown1023 03:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• I second the reception section.

[edit] "She Shoulda Said 'No'!"

Ongoing attempt at bringing exploitation-era films to featured status. Any pointers or help would be greatly appreciated. A cast list is forthcoming, for the record. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supernumerary

• Is it really a semi-documentary? That term makes me think of the film showing actual events. More likely it is based on true events.
  • Semidocumentary is not my word.
• Consider changing "played by Leeds" to a parenthetical (like:"(Leeds)") and wikilinking her name.
  • I think she's wikilinked before that point, but the rest, yes.
• Split the Background into a Background and a Plot section.
  • Even if the two interrelate? Serious question.
    • Probably, because they help readers and editors find information better... but I'm not sure. Cbrown1023 03:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• "Kay via Franklin Productions filmed the production, like many similar movies of the era, in six days." might be changed to "Kay filmed the production for Franklin Productions in six days, like many similar movies of the era." The via just bothers me for some reason.
• You already said it, but I'll say it anyway. Add the cast section.
• More production info would be nice. When was it shot and how?
  • I'll see if I can find any info on this that isn't already there.
• You might want to point out the poster has a naked woman depicted.
  • I was wondering what you were talking about, and then realized the other poster. I'll have to find out where that came from.
• Reception does not mention any critics or reviews.
  • Only because I haven't found any (yet?).

[edit] Ginger Snaps

I've been working on this article for some time now, and it has come a long way from when I first read it. It's now B class (thanks Cbrown1023!), and I hope that through this peer review I can move it up to a Good Article.--Supernumerary 22:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cbrown1023

• Image:Ginger_Snaps_poster.jpg and Image:Katharine_Isabelle1.jpg do not have fair use rationales. Cbrown1023 00:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Done!
    • Good job on writing them and so quickly. Cbrown1023 00:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'm pretty sure that you have enough references but that is definately something to make sure of. Cbrown1023 00:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you think it's ready for a GA nomination?
    • Yeah... that's one of the places from which I was getting my suggesions and what to check it against (the style guidlines and WP:WIAGA). So yes, I do believe it is ready. Cbrown1023 00:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

• 2006