Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Peer review/2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 The Devil Wears Prada 1.1 Crzycheetah 1.2 Wiki-New 1.3 Konstable 2 Cool World 3 The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film) 3.1 Trebor 3.2 Supernumerary 4 The Cat and the Canary (1927 film) 5 Black Book (film) 5.1 Lead 5.2 Plot 5.3 Cast 5.4 Production 5.5 Reception 5.6 List of nominations and awards 5.7 Other 6 Tears of the Black Tiger 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Plot and cast 6.3 Production 6.4 Reception 6.5 Distribution 6.6 Soundtrack, miscellanae 7 The Last Waltz 8 Chickerball 9 Borat! Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan 9.1 Daniel Case 10 The Bourne Identity

[edit] The Devil Wears Prada

This is my first venture here with an article I created ten months ago and have done about 99% of the work on since. I have thoroughly researched it, cited everything I possibly could, saw the movie when it came out and then rented the DVD, and this is the result: the most comprehensive source of information on this film anywhere on the Internet.

This is the first step toward taking it to what I hope will be eventual featured status. I have carefully watched other peer reviews here, FAC noms for film both successful and unsuccessful, and GA noms, to see what expectations we have for film articles. I believe this article meets them.

The only issue I would see people having: It's long. At 86K, it is the longest article on Wikipedia about a single film, in fact.

But that is not due to unintended cruftiness (I promised on the talk page to-do to avoid a trivia/miscellanea section and I did). There is just an unusual amount of information out there (again, I think I set a record for most footnotes in a film article (which, I understand, don't count for an article's length, so that might help). Consider that the DVD's commentary track features the writer, producer, director, editor, cinematographer and costume designer all talking about the things you'd want for a Wikipedia film article: their creative decisions and why they made them. Then the deleted scenes have the director and editor talking about why they deleted them. Then there's all sorts of interviews and press coverage, quite a bit of it online, some of which I discovered in the course of doing the research. And, again, a great deal of it relevant and useful.

I have let this mostly sit for a month after I finished most major work on it (and until after the Oscars) while I took a break and worked on other stuff. I am proudest of my work on this of anything I have done on Wikipedia so far. Let me know what you think. Daniel Case 03:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crzycheetah

Comment Wow, I am really stunned at the length of the article. After skimming through the article, I have found several minor things I didn't like.

• Image:Anhathaway.jpg should be moved to the right side so that the first four bullets of the Characters section could be seen.
  • I put it there (or, well, someone else did) because I tend to believe very strictly in alternating images from side to side for readability's sake, as it mirrors the sweep of our eyes across the page.

    But at the time it was placed, it was a lot closer to the infobox. That doesn't apply now.

• Image:Stanley Tucci in DWP.jpg should be moved down to the Cast section.
  • Will do. It was placed there before things got so long.
• {{wikiquote}} should be moved down to the External links section.
  • I had that there because it's next to the writing section and to give the readers' eyes a break from what was a long block of text. I'll move it, but I may have to get another image, which will have to be fair use.
• Commercial, Critical, and Local marketing subsections of International section should be merged under International section. In other words, get rid of those subsections by putting the info under International section.
  • Good idea.
• 2006 in film link should be removed from See also section, since it's already linked in the lead.
  • Someone else put it there. I thought it had something to do with project guidelines; didn't make sense to me and I'll take it out.
• Citation #42 should be fixed.
  • Yes, someone else moved a reference to the intro without bothering to fix the followups. I hate when that happens. At some point we'll have to make it a blockable offense :-).
• Image:The Devil Wears Prada DVD cover.jpg should be under DVD section.
  • I have it where it is so it displays the way it does. I can move it, and will, but if it becomes necessary to move it back to the left again I'll put it back above so it doesn't cut the hed off from the text. I hate when that happens; it looks ugly.
• Question: what does ibid mean in your references?
  • Same thing as in everyone else's references.

That's all from me for now. I am sure others will give you more help in improving this article. Crzycheetah 23:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. These were helpful suggestions. Very good to have another pair of eyes on it. Daniel Case 04:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki-New

Let me just congratulate on the effort, and for not letting a film you like that could be forgotten in a decade's time not happen. So, effectively you need to make more use of summarising.

• Plot: Are you sure you can't squash down things, or connect elements together better so as to feel less than a retread?
  • Believe it or not, someone else felt it wasn't detailed enough and added more. Are you looking at today's version? This was the way it was before today ... I had worked on getting it down to less than a thousand words before submitting it here. Think we should go back to the shorter version? I do.

Indeed, cut it down. WikiNew 13:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Differences from book: Does anyone care if Andrea isn't blonde? I suggest keeping the most important information, such as Lily's character. What do you think are the most startling changes? Looking at the writing section, you could merge some information together as to why there were done, so as to not be so listy.
  • The hair info could certainly go ... a few weeks ago I decided that some anon's addition of the twins' hair being red in the movie and blonde in the book was waaaaay too trivial to be in the article, particularly since their role is even smaller in the movie. I just followed the examples I saw in other recognized film articles, where that level of detail was given.

    Certainly the changes to the ending, Lily and the other main characters are significant are important and should stay.

Well good luck with that. Structurally it'd be best to walk through the plot and describe the differences. WikiNew 13:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Would it? If I'm reading a section headed "Synopsis", I want to read a précis of the plot, not a précis constantly interrupted by explanations as to how the book was different. That would work when there's minimal differences between the two; not here.

Besides, many other recognized articles about films based on books have this separate section describing the differences (see V for Vendetta and The Lord of the Rings. Although, now that I think of it, I could probably prosify it, which could shorten things up.

• The Production could lose a lot of sectioning. Axe storyboards information: trivial at best, the only notable thing it's used for is mostly big budget and Spielberg's films.
  • Fine. Frankel says it on the commentary like it was a pretty significant decision (maybe it is in TV, which is where he's done most of his work).
  • A caveat on losing the sectioning: If during a later review a consensus emerges to restore such sectioning (I did it in response to common complaints on FAC ... I created {{subsections}} for a reason), I will do it. Daniel Case 06:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• All quotes need to be boiled down to a few sentences.
  • You mean quotes from the movie? It doesn't really have that. You mean other people's quotes? I do think (perhaps it's my journalism background) that having someone's actual quote as a way of explaining something is better than some interpretation you might write.

    Or do you mean the long quotes?

Long quotes regarding the making of the film, such as the one at the end of the costuming. WikiNew 13:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Can do on that one.

• Locations is a list. Try writing it in as a timeline of when things happened. Look at my work on Jurassic Park (film).
  • I looked at that, and there is no source that describes what they were doing on what date that I could use that way, the way you used that "making of" book. The locations, as cited, all come from the DVD commentary, where they're sort of just tossed off. Under those circumstances, I can't see how you could do them as anything but a list. Daniel Case 00:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Surprisingly well needs to be deleted from Reception opening paragraph.
  • I do think someone said that its box-office performance was surprising (an early summer chick flick was not supposed to gross almost as well as, say, Superman Returns did. And it had legs, particularly overseas. Perhaps I should cite that?

Indeed.

It's in one of the DVD reviews. I'll put it in.

• Nab critisism with Anna Wintour for overall look at the film as a satire.
  • Nab? Did you mean to use another word?

Yes, do merge to an overall section on the fashion industry's reaction. WikiNew 13:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Remove see also and references in other media, it's original research.
  • We have that for quite a few other film articles. What if it were cited (Most of it was added by other editors, anyway)? I can't see how someone explicitly referencing the film in an episode of Ugly Betty is original research.

It could be trivial and considered original research: WP:A says this isn't about what you notice. WikiNew 13:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked over the style guidelines and, indeed, there are neither section. But let me just warn you that that sort of thing will likely be restored at some point, given the similarities between DWP and UB and the fact that they both succeeded.

Funny Face was a film mentioned in some of the reviews ... I suppose I can integrate it into the article. Ditto with the Glad ad, although I'd like to have a source for it, like whatwasthat.com (but it is the same music). Daniel Case 03:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Images: how often does the satanic shoe need to pop up?
  • Probably less, but since the article got as long as it did, I felt they were necessary to break up the text and make it easier on readers' eyes. Daniel Case 00:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Overall, very good work. Just needs to definitely be more readable before a GA. WikiNew 17:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed to split off the production section (which accounts for more than a quarter of the article's total length) as a separate article on the talk page as a way of bringing the article into manageable length. If any reviewers have any thoughts on the idea (which might be a first as far as I can tell), bring them up there. Daniel Case 04:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Konstable

Just a brief comment (might add more later):

• You need to check your image details, a lot of the fair use ones are missing fair use rationales
• I think you are probably using too many images. They are mostly fair use so you should be limiting their use to only instances where they add to the content of the article significantly. For instance, the shoe image is repeated 4 times, different situations, but quite repetitive and probably not really necessary.

--Konstable 11:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I know I put {{fair use rationale}} on all the screenshots or publicity stills (actually, they're all stills ... I really think those should have a separate licensing template to reflect that they are created and distributed by the film distributor, as opposed to user-created screenshots). While my original justification was that it demonstrated the iconic power of the image, I was aware that some people might see it as overkill and accordingly I'm ready to remove two of them ... probably the soundtrack and the teaser poster (the former is already in that article; the latter has just been kept since it was first used before the film's release).

It will also help to split off the production history section ... I think I'll keep Frankel and Streep there, and maybe Streep and Field since they're easier to justify as not having been part of the movie. Daniel Case 13:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cool World

For a film that I hate, this is a lot of work I've put forward. How are my efforts? I think there's a GA nomination here. (Ibaranoff24 23:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

---

I'm short on time, so I'll just do what I can now and come back later.

• You have fair use rationales. Good.
• The cast section is really bothersome. You took it straight from IMDB, and it shows. Cut it down to the important characters, and then for the characters you left out of the plot give a short summary of who they are. (You should probably use "*" instead of ":".)
• Why are you linking to individual pages in external links? Who would really want to jump to page 3 of an article that they know nothing about?
  • Not my doing. (Ibaranoff24 05:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC))
    • I'm not trying to accuse you of anything, I just use "you" because it's tiresome to write "the article".--Supernumerary 05:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Incorporate the trivia. That is a red flag to any GA reviewer.
• Is the fan site link necessary?
• The cast section usually follows plot.
• Take some images from the character pages and put them in the plot section. (As a side note, I don't think these characters merit their own page as they are only characters in one poorly received movie.)
  • Again, the character pages, not my doing. The film has some fans and they did some early work on the page. I would have put in some info about the very few fans the film has, but I didn't, because I didn't want to get too much into original research there. (Ibaranoff24 05:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC))
  • Additionally, I found all of the images from the former character pages to be unusable. I added one newly-uploaded image from the official Bakshi website into the summary. (Ibaranoff24 06:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC))
• The lead is choppy. 4 very short paragraphs and one misplaced comma.
• The plot is usually written "... then John Doe (famous actor) opens the door to realize that his wife, Lorraine (famous actress) really is an axe murderer..." not "famous actor plays so-and-so". I see you switched later, go back and make the earlier ones conform.
  • I'll work on it. (Ibaranoff24 05:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC))
• Wikilink the actors in the plot.
• Infoboxes don't have commas or ampersands.
• Explain Cool World in the first paragraph of plot.
• Why are each of these words wikilinked "sexy blonde humanoid female doodle"? Maybe "humanoid" and "doodle", but I hope everyone knows what "female", "sexy", and "blonde" means (this is the internet afterall :P).
  • I have no idea. I did very little work on the plot. All of my work on the article was mainly concerned with the production of the film. (Ibaranoff24 05:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC))
• Two consecutive sentences open with "During his prison sentence" and "While in jail". Condense.
• Only wikilink doodle once.
• "Frank Harris, aided by his partner Nails the spider-like doodle, keeps a sharp eye on Holli and Deebs, but eventually Holli and Deebs have sex and Holli turns into a noid." Run-on.
• "Deebs and Holli head to Deebs's home dimension or universe, but the barrier between the Cool and real worlds has been thrown out of balance and Deebs and Holli repeatedly turn into clown-like doodles." Run-on.
• The conception section is one big quote. Not necessarily a bad thing, but the section is also called production, so you need to talk about budget, development time, animation problems, etc.
• Expand the response section with more views. Pick the three most major reviews and put them in there.
• Did this affect anyone's career? Especially Bakshi as this was his return.
  • I put in a paragraph about this at the end of the "response" section. I'm not totally happy with it, but it's fine for now. (Ibaranoff24 06:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC))
• That's all I can do in 20 minutes. I'll try to do more later.--Supernumerary 04:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

My suggestions: "The film flashes forward to 1992, where we meet Jack Deebs"- in academic writing, "I", "we" and "you" are strongly discouraged and don't sound to good. The production section towards the end turns into Wikiquote; I understand your motives for quoting at length, but I'd surround it with a bit more prose. Cast section is bare and lacks prose- the production section contains some casting info, and I'd move that down there. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, one more note: since you didn't write the plot, have you checked it for ugly copyvios? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no problem there. (Ibaranoff24 15:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC))

The article is phat. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Except now the images are cluttering the article. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. Not my change; can't be held responsible. (Ibaranoff24 06:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film)

I started this article from scratch, originally as a stub, in June of 2006. I've been gradually researching and updating the article since that time. Its been a "B" status article for some time now and I think it may currently meet the criteria for a Good Article. But I'd like others to take a look and suggest any possible improvements before I nominate it for GA. I've pretty much exhausted my various reference works...if someone could add any additional sourced details to the article regarding the film's production phase it would be appreciated.-Hal Raglan 20:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I've responded to all suggestions on the automated peer review page.-Hal Raglan 05:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• You're missing one fair use rationale and the others are weak. I'll see if I can do a proper PR some time this week.--Supernumerary 03:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Updated/rewrote fair use rationales, should be proper and no longer "weak".-Hal Raglan 04:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Also added the missing in action fair use rationale.-Hal Raglan 05:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trebor

• for the next several years - I think "next" is implied; nothing else would make sense. "Several" is a bit vague, so perhaps more detail on timescale.
  • Rewrote slightly, noting specifically in what year the series ended.-Hal Raglan 20:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• 16th Century Spain - rather blunt start. Incorporate the setting into full prose.
  • This is actually a fairly standard practice for a plot synopsis for films set in the past. I've changed it to read "In Spain, during the 16th century...", which seems a little clumsy to me.-Hal Raglan 20:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Is it standard practice? If so, leave it; I've just never seen it before. Trebor 21:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Although they are mentioned in the intro, I would wikilink and give the full name of the actors within the brackets. It just makes it easier to associate character and actor.
  • This seems redundant to me, but I've wikilinked all actors again in the Synopsis section.-Hal Raglan 20:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• There could be more wikilinking within the synopsis and perhaps the section as a whole could be trimmed slightly.
  • More wikilinks added to the section (I hope I haven't gone overboard).-Hal Raglan 21:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The synopsis currently consists of 672 words. Wikipedia guidelines suggest "between 400 - 700" words as the recommended length for this section. Nonetheless, I will attempt to make some trims to the text.-Hal Raglan 21:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it's probably alright. Take all my suggestions with judgement; I'm not always right (in fact, I'm frequently wrong). Trebor 21:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• The first part of production (The box office success...) isn't actually to do with the production of the film, so should probably be moved to response.
  • It was the box office success of the previous film that convinced AIP to proceed with the production of Pit, so I think this in fact does belong in the "Production" section.-Hal Raglan 20:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oops, I read that completely wrong; you're entirely right. Trebor 21:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Again, wikilink the actors in the Cast section (it's a pretty standard thing to do).
  • I understand your point, but the actors are already wikilinked in the infobox, lead paragraphs, and "Synopsis" section. I think to wikilink them again here would simply be redundant. If you really think this might be an issue for other editors, let me know.-Hal Raglan 21:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't know, I can only comment on what is usually done in the articles I've seen (and the Film Wikiproject guidelines). Trebor 21:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• With few exceptions, the majority of the film’s reviews - seems a bit redundant to say there were exceptions and also that the majority were positive - one implies the other. I'd cut the first three words.
  • Excellent point. Those three words are now gone.-Hal Raglan 20:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Why has "uncredited" got a [sic]?
  • Because, despite the reviewer's comment, the screenplay was credited. The insertion of the [sic] is to show that this was Stinson's error, not mine.-Hal Raglan 20:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh okay. It might be better to make more explicit what you're correcting; in my experience, sic is usually used for spelling or grammar problems. Trebor 21:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I believe you are correct that sic is generally used for spelling and grammatical errors, but its also utilized to note that a transcription error has not occurred. I may just delete this particular comment to avoid any possible confusion.-Hal Raglan 21:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty good at the moment and fairly well-referenced. I'm not particularly involved with the GA process, but I reckon this stands a good chance. A bit of tidying and a copyedit should make sure of it. Good work. Trebor 20:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Did a more detailed read through and came up with a few things:

• Other sources, including Corman himself, have said that the film's budget was in fact approximately $300,000, nearly the same as for House - I don't like the "in fact", it sounds a bit conversation-like. Also, the sentence follows a very similar form to the previous one (budget was so-and-so, nearly so-and-so of House); it might be nicer to change the form a little.
  • Rewrote both sentences to avoid redundant "sound", while retaining basic facts.-Hal Raglan 21:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• horrific finale - I'm nit-picking, but isn't horrific a bit POV.
  • I think its borderline POV. The intent of the finale is clearly to be horrific. Removing the offending word, as I can't think of any other way to write this w/out being equally POV, is probably the best course of action.-Hal Raglan 21:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Filming went fairly smoothly without any major problems - bit of redundancy, "fairly smoothly" implies "no major problems" and vice versa.
  • It is redundant. Fixed!-Hal Raglan 21:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• It was determined the best way to film the flashbacks would be in monochrome - passive voice and a bit wordy; could probably be simplified.
  • Fixed! Removed passive voice and trimmed.-Hal Raglan 21:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• constructed "from scratch" - the quotation marks suggest it's a quotation which I don't think it is. If it isn't, perhaps something less slangy could be used.
  • "from scratch" is taken directly from the Lightman article.-Hal Raglan 22:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• these treasure troves - odd way to describe them, perhaps POV.
  • Changed to "various depositories"-Hal Raglan 22:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • "Various" is redundant ;) Trebor 22:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• The film’s pressbook claimed - claimed is a word to avoid per this.
  • Changed to "noted"-Hal Raglan 22:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• The film’s critical reputation has continued to grow over the years and it is now generally held to be a classic of the genre - definitely needs a reference if it's to be included.
  • Changed to less effusive "one of the best entries in Corman's Poe series." This is definitely supported by the numerous quotes that follow-Hal Raglan 22:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• There are a few sentences starting with conjunctions ("and" or "but"), which perhaps could be changed. I personally dislike them, but they are much more accepted these days; I don't know if it would count as poor prose, so you can take or leave this suggestion.
  • I'll take a look through the article and see if any these particular sentences can/should be changed.-Hal Raglan 22:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Having read through this article in more detail, I've upgraded my opinion of it to "very good". Trebor 21:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Also:

• most of them starring Price - it'd be as easy and more informative to say "[number] of them starring Price."
  • replaced "most" with "five"-Hal Raglan 22:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• a rare achievement for a follow-up/sequel - may need citing (I'm not sure). I dislike the slash as well, does "sequel" add a meaning that isn't implied through "follow-up"? Trebor 22:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • removed "sequel" (and that monstrously evil "slash"). I don't think this needs to be sourced, but I'll look for a cite if anybody believes otherwise.-Hal Raglan 22:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, I just dislike slashes. I'm uncertain about the necessity of a cite but I think it's better with one than without. Trebor 23:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supernumerary

• Please use <br/> in the infobox instead of ";" and ",".
  • fixed-Hal Raglan 00:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "a young Englishman's visit to a forbidding castle to investigate his sister's mysterious death." Rephrase to avoid the repetition of "to". I suggest a who clause.
  • changed to "a young Englishman who visits a forbidding castle to investigate his sister's mysterious death"-Hal Raglan 00:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "immediately following Corman’s House of Usher (1960)" This naturally refers to the nearest noun, which is not what you want. I suggest rephrasing to make it clearer and to eliminate the parenthetical (perhaps with "released the year before" or a more specific measurement).
  • changed to "the first having been Corman’s House of Usher released the previous year"-Hal Raglan 00:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "in order to find out" Redundant and colloquial.
  • changed to "to find out"-Hal Raglan 00:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • changed again to "to investigate"-Hal Raglan 02:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• I don't think "death" should be wikilinked, and I am iffy on "castle".
  • I agree with you; these were wikilinked based on a suggestion made during this peer review.-Hal Raglan 00:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "having died from a rare blood disorder." Maybe change "having died from" to just "dying from"
  • I don't see a problem here-Hal Raglan 00:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "However, it is soon revealed that Elizabeth had become obsessed with the various torture devices located in the basement of the castle and one day locked herself into an iron maiden, having gone insane." Avoid passive voice. Move the "having gone insane" to earlier to make it clear why she locked herself in. Is "various" needed?
  • Rewrote for clarity, removed "various"-Hal Raglan 01:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Francis, having noted that Nicholas appears to be feeling guilty regarding Elizabeth’s death, is offered a lengthy explanation by Catherine." Avoid passive! You have a clause larger than the main clause separating the subject and verb. Using active voice solves this problem.
  • Rewrote-Hal Raglan 01:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Their father was Sebastian Medina" Their goes back to Francis and Catherine here.
  • Rewrote, and removed the name "Francis" from the sentence to avoid any possible confusion.-Hal Raglan 01:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "suddenly began hitting" and "then began torturing" Avoid repeating "began".
  • Fixed-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "directly in front of Nicholas’s eyes" Drop "directly".
  • removed "directly"-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• ' "But the doctor tells Nicholas that "if Elizabeth Medina walks these corridors, it is her spirit and not her living self." ' I dislike using "but" to start a sentence. Try a good "however" or "nevertheless".
  • removed "but"-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "with one of her rings found in the keyboard." I don't think this clause works, I'd say change it to "and one of her ...".
  • magically transformed into two sentences to avoid clause problems-Hal Raglan 02:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "That night, Nicholas, now on the very edge of sanity, hears his wife calling him." Maybe excessive commas.
  • Seems fine to me-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "hears his wife calling him. He follows her ghostly voice down to the torture chamber." These two sentences can be easily combined by just saying he follows her voice (or he is summoned by her voice).
  • yes, but I think it reads better the way it is.-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Nicholas then approaches Elizabeth and promises he will torture her horribly." Needs a comma.
  • comma added-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "pendulum/razor" Avoid using a slash. Perhaps "razor-tipped pendulum"?
  • changed to "razor-sharp blade"-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • decided to change to "the swinging blade" instead, because "razor-sharp" was used a sentence or two back.-Hal Raglan 17:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Catherine arrives just in time with a servant. After a brief fight, Nicholas falls to his death and Francis is removed from the torture device." The servant is not important, so cut him. You need a comma for the second sentence.
  • mentioning the servant is important, because it needs to be explained how and why Nicholas falls to his death. He doesn't fight Catherine.-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh! So he fights the servant? I just thought that she showed up with a servant. I didn't see the servant mentioned after that and assumed the fight was between him and Catherine.--Supernumerary 02:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Seriously? I'm sorry, this is the first time I've laughed during this peer review. If you honestly believe this is confusingly written, I'll need to clarify this plot point. I suppose I could change the second sentence to "After a brief fight with the servant..."-Hal Raglan 02:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, after glancing at this again I can see why there was confusion. I've made the change to the second sentence.-Hal Raglan 03:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "The Pit and the Pendulum was announced in August 1960 and filming began the first week of January, 1961." Comma!
  • comma added--Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Williams' " You need to standardize to either "s's" or "s' ".
  • Oops, thought I had standardized this. Changed to "Williams's"-Hal Raglan 02:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "According to Lucy Chase Williams' book, The Complete Films of Vincent Price, the shooting schedule was fifteen days with an additional day set aside for cast rehearsals, and the film’s budget was almost $1 million." Again comma. Remove the parenthetical by simply saying "with an additional day for cast rehearsals".
  • I can't pretend to understand the horror some editors feel regarding parenthetical asides, but I've removed them here. The sentence seems clumsier to me this way.-Hal Raglan 02:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "$300,000." I'm not sure if you need to make it clear that it is US$. Though in the infobox you should.
  • I think this is fine the way it is.-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "that barely resembled Poe, with only the finale having any similarity at all to the original short story on which the film was based." Redundant.
  • I see nothing redundant about specifically mentioning what aspect of the story was true to Poe's tale.-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You say that it barely resembles Poe, and then you say that the only similarity is the finale. I don't see why you wouldn't just say that it only resembles the Poe story during the finale. Doesn't that imply that it barely resembled Poe's story?--Supernumerary 02:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, the implication would indeed be there if I rewrote the sentence in the way you suggest. However, my personal preference is to keep it the way it is. I honestly don't find anything wrong with first noting that the narrative barely resembles Poe, then specifically detailing the small part of the film that does directly correspond to the short story. It doesn't seem redundant to me. I've incorporated many of your very helpful suggestions, but I just don't agree with you on this one.-Hal Raglan 02:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Price suggested numerous dialogue line changes himself for his character." Move or drop the "himself".
  • Changed to "Price himself".-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Francis Barnard is first introduced to Nicholas and asks about loud, strange noises he has just heard." Awkward. Maybe use a when clause?
  • changed to "when Francis Barnard is first introduced to Nicholas, the young man asks about loud, strange noises he had heard a few moments earlier.-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "dialogue would have ruined the power of the scene" Should just be "would".
  • I'm assuming you mean change to "would ruin". Changed-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Correct.--Supernumerary 02:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "with Panavision cameras and lenses." I'm not sure how important what cameras and lenses they used.
  • probably not important; another editor had inserted this info into the text and, since the Corman quote referenced camerawork, I felt this was an appropriate place for the detail. I may simply delete this.-Hal Raglan 00:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "with the major technicians involved." Can probably drop "involved".
  • gone!-Hal Raglan 00:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Director of Photography Floyd Crosby and Art Director Daniel Haller" Wikilink "Director of Photography" and "Art Director", and check if they two people have articles.
  • both have articles, and both have been wikilinked previously in the infobox and in the lead paragraphs.-Hal Raglan 00:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "attempted to shoot them in a manner that would convey to the audience" I think "attempted to shoot them to convey to the audience" works just as well with fewer words, but I don't like the repetition of "to". I have no preference really.
  • since I can't think of a better way to write this (at least at the moment), I will let this stay the way it is.-Hal Raglan 00:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "The sequences were then printed on blue-tinted stock which was subsequently toned red during development, effectively producing a two-tone image." Add some wikilinks.
  • wikilinks added-Hal Raglan 01:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "The image was then run through an optical printer where the edges were vignetted and a twisted linear distortion was introduced." Wikilink "optical printer" and "vignetted".
  • done-Hal Raglan 01:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• I don't see how wide-angle lenses help convey hysteria.
  • I don't really either, but that was Corman's reasoning, per the cited Lightman article.-Hal Raglan 01:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Except for a brief exterior prologue filmed on the Palos Verdes coast, featuring Kerr's arrival to the castle by coach, the entire production was shot in four sound stages at the California Studios in Hollywood." "featuring Kerr's arrival to the castle by coach" goes back to "the Palos Verdes coast"; reword. Also is "featuring" the right word? Maybe "showing" is better.
  • changed to "The film's brief exterior prologue showing Kerr's arrival to the castle was filmed on the Palos Verdes coast. The rest of the production was shot in four interior sound stages at the California Studios in Hollywood."
• "all of which were dusty, discarded pieces left over from old Universal productions." There's no way to fix the ambiguity here (that always bothers me), but you could drop "left over from old Universal productions".
  • I rewrote the whole sentence to read "At Universal Studios, he located numerous discarded pieces from old productions, including massive archways, fireplaces, windows and doorways, and several torture machine props."-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "he found gigantic stairways and stone wall units that were available" "that were available" is superfluous.
  • removed.-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Haller selected and rented numerous pieces" Is "selected" needed?
  • probably not, but it indicates that he did have ample choices. removed anyway.-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "film were subsequently constructed" Is "subsequently" necessary?
  • not really, removed.-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "The film’s pressbook noted that the pendulum utilized in the movie was eighteen feet long, with a realistic rubber cutting blade, and weighed over a ton." Is "utilized in the movie" necessary? I don't think the commas are needed, and you might want to move "weighed over a ton" to earlier.
  • slight rewrite, deleted "utilized in the movie" and moved "weighed over a ton" directly after "eighteen feet long"-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "The pendulum was rigged from the top of the sound stage and suspended thirty-five feet in the air." Why not just "The pendulum was rigged from the top of the sound stage thirty-five feet from the floor."? Or am I misinterpreting "suspended"?
• No, you're not misinterpreting...rewrote-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "and a 40 mm Panavision wide-angle lens used" maybe "equipped with a 40 mm Panavision wide-angle lens"
  • rewrote-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "These areas were filled in later by printing-in process extensions of the set, doubling it's size onscreen." Wikilink "printing-in process extensions" and change "it's" to "its".
  • "Printing-in process extensions" is exactly what is used in the Lightman article, and I confess I'm not quite sure what this means. I could find no wikipedia articles that relate to this term. In the film, its quite clear that a matte painting was added to the shot to enhance the size of the set, so I'll go out on a limb and wikilink the term to the article on matte paintings.-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You could try asking over at WikiProject Filmmaking.--Supernumerary 02:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I have done just that. We'll see what the experts come up with.-Hal Raglan 03:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Some, however, thought his acting overly theatrical and damaging to the film's mood." The some here needs to be specified with a source.
  • I've quoted a critic who felt this way, and properly cited it.-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oops, I missed that.--Supernumerary 02:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "so after the filming was completed he had all of her dialogue dubbed by a different actress." Why not just "so he had all of her dialogue dubbed by a different actress"?
  • I could rewrite it that way, but the dubbing was done after the filming was completed. Perhaps an irrelevant detail, but I don't see the harm in including it.-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Anders'" should be "Anders's"
  • you are correct, fixed-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Anders' role as Price's (much younger) sister was one of several appearances she made in AIP productions, most of them directed by Corman." Did Corman direct most AIP productions, or did he direct most of her appearances? (I see that it is later clarified, but fix this nonetheless.)
  • clarified-Hal Raglan 01:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Other cast: Patrick Westwood as Maximillian, Lynette Bernay as Maria, Larry Turner as Nicholas as child, Mary Menzies as Isabella, Charles Victor as Bartolome." Who are these characters?
  • Nicholas as child, Isabella, and Bartolome are all mentioned in the synopsis. Maximillian was a servant and Maria was a maid. All five roles are bit parts. I'll add brief descriptors in the Cast Section to explain who Maximillian and Maria were.-Hal Raglan 01:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• 'Prior to the start of filming, Corman had set aside one day of rehearsals with his cast. "Previously, I had painstakingly rehearsed the actors so there was complete understanding as to what each was to accomplish in each scene. This is most important; there is nothing worse than to be on the set and ready to roll, only to find that director and actor have different views as to how the scene is to be done. Thanks to pre-production planning and rehearsals, there was no time wasted on the set in haggling and making decisions." ' Didn't you already talk about this before the cast section?
  • No, a mention was made earlier of pre-planning with the technical crew. This is in reference to one-day set apart from the shooting schedule strictly for cast rehearsals.-Hal Raglan 01:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, I did mention this before, when discussing the production cost and shooting schedule. No need to state this twice, so I removed the previous reference.-Hal Raglan 02:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "$2,000,000 in domestic (U.S. and Canada)" This is a case where I think you really should clarify that it is US dollars.
  • will do-Hal Raglan 01:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "peccadilloes" I sadly think that most people do not know what "peccadilloes" means, and that you might want to wikitionary/wikipedia link it.
  • OK-Hal Raglan 01:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "near to burlesquing the role." Again "burlesquing" might have to be linked.
  • probably a good idea-Hal Raglan 01:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "While noting that the film was “marginally less successful” than House of Usher," Should mention that this is erroneous.
  • I don't think he was referring to box office success.-Hal Raglan 01:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Thing is that earlier it says that the film was both a better box office success and a better critical success. What was he referring to?--Supernumerary 02:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      • He was referring to the film's overall quality. His comment indicates that he personally didn't believe Pit was on quite the same level as House. That's why he says "marginally less successful". As this is one critic's opinion, I don't believe this conflicts with the earlier statement. If every critic felt this way, obviously the earlier statement would not be accurate.-Hal Raglan 03:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Since this is apparently one of those "open to interpretation" kind of things, and could conceivably confuse anybody reading the article, I've removed the comment.-Hal Raglan 04:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Phil Hardy’s The Aurum Film Encyclopedia: Horror observed" Wikilink the book?
  • I've been thinking about doing this for a long time. It is a major film reference work and needs a wikipedia article. I'll work on this later and eventually wikilink it.-Hal Raglan 01:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• The response section seems to just heap praise on the film. I see that it is balanced by negative reviews, but consider cutting any of the less important/repetitive reviews.
  • My personal preference for "Response" sections is that they have as many notable positive and negative critical reactions as possible. I'll take another look here and remove what I can.-Hal Raglan 01:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• It's standard to have all film guide and rotten tomatoes links in the external links section.
  • OK, I'll add links to MRQE, DVD Beaver, MetaCritic, and Rotten Tomatoes to that section.-Hal Raglan 01:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• It looks good overall and should easily pass GA criteria.--Supernumerary 00:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Cat and the Canary (1927 film)

I wrote this article from scratch. I created the stub in June 2006 and largely ignored it until recently. Finding sources that discussed this article was difficult, so along with general comments about the article, if anyone can point to any other sources, primary (reviews, etc.) or academic, please do so. I plan on nominating this article for FA in the future. Note I patterned this article after other FA film article's I've written (Halloween (film), Halloween II, Halloween III: Season of the Witch, and Night of the Living Dead), so some aspects of this article will be stylistically similar to them, such as the absence of a list of cast members. Dmoon1 15:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• At a glance, it looks like a great article with lots of references. Considering adding another section with a Cast list (not just "Casting") to add to the article and go along with "Casting". (Don't take anything away from casting, just re-iterate the Cast in that new section.) Cbrown1023 15:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I prefer prose to lists, but I'll see if I can come up with something that looks good in the article (since these lists seem to be in vogue with recent film FAs).Dmoon1 01:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• In my opinion the quality of the article would improve if the information borrowed from other articles would be removed. Elements that are not directly about the film The Cat and the Canary can easily be linked to. Example: the genre description with a list of films in the lead section. Another example: the carreer description with a list of prominent roles of the lead actress in the 'Casting' section. - Ilse@ 21:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This type of information is typically found in film FAs. Dmoon1 01:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

---

• First thing I notice is that you have fair use rationales. Yay!
• "As the appointed time arrives, West's lawyer—Roger Crosby (Tully Marshall)—discovers a second will has mysteriously appeared in the safe." Do you really need the em-dashes or would an appositive suffice? Em-dashes are a much longer pause than commas.
  • fixed this
• "tears his victims like they were canaries!" I'm just wondering if it should be "tears apart",
  • This is a quote from one of the title cards (I think that's what they're called) in the film.
    • They can be called title cards or intertitles.--Supernumerary 02:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• "a hand with long nails and covered in hair" Why not "a hairy hand ..."?
  • fixed
• "they discover a hidden passage in the wall and the corpse of Roger Crosby," and "Paul vanishes as the secret passage closes behind him." Clarify that the body was in the passage by saying "they discover a hidden passage in the wall and in it the corpse of Roger Crosby"
  • fixed
• "He gains consciousness" Shouldn't "gains" be "regains"?
  • fixed
• Just how did the second will appear? Was it Charlie?
  • As far as I recall, the film doesn't explain.
• How is everyone who arrives related to the late West? Most important is Annabelle's relation.
  • done, although from memory I don't the film is too explicit as to who's who and how they're related, just that Annabelle is the niece.
• I specified the expressionism link to point to the section on German expressionism, so "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" is unnecessary and the Waxworks info can be moved to the next paragraph.
  • I would like to keep these here since they are influential in the making of the film and come up elsewhere in the article.
    • I agree with you. I peer review by just reading through and building this list as I go. I would normally have gone back through my suggestions but I was pressed for time.--Supernumerary 02:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• "a Gothic horror film trend that Laemmle wanted to capitalize on. Other films in the genre like Frank Tuttle's Puritan Passions and Roland West's The Monster and The Bat—all adaptations of Broadway stage plays—proved successful." I think you can combine these two sentences.
  • done
• "The family immediately concludes that she is insane." What about the psychiatrist?
• "A reviewer for the New York Times" Could this be changed to just "The New York Times"?
  • done
• "naturally thought Leni" Who naturally thought Leni? You ellipses out to much.
  • "exponents" of expressionism; there should not be a comma in the ellipses.
• "In reality" Sound like POV to me. You give a quote and then say that is wrong and this one is the real one.
  • These two quotes are from the same source. The author is stating what hardcore expressionists thought, then explains how Leni made his expressionist film palatable to an American audience.
    • I understand that but "in reality" says that the one quote is so wrong as to be non-real, and since "in reality" is not a quote it means that the article is evaluating these two quotes and strongly selecting one over the other.--Supernumerary 02:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• The lead should mention that it set the pattern for the old dark house genre.
  • this is mentioned in the lead, but "old dark house" isn't explained here. I wikilinked to haunted house, but that may not be sufficient.
• "The film was released on VHS and DVD in 1997 and 2005 " Needs a "respectively".
  • I think the VHS and DVD editions came out at the same time in 1997 and 2005.
    • Maybe clarify that with a "both".
• I've had a look at your IMDB cites, and, while they should pass muster for GA, IMDB is not considered a reliable source because the content is user-generated. You'll have to convert them to hard sources sometime.
  • All the FA film article I've written contain links to IMDb and no one has complained so far. This is usually the only available source for the type of information being cited (filmographies, etc.).
    • Hmmm. I'll look around and see. I have a whole page of resources that I photocopied out of a book that probably lists some film reference books and catalogs that should have filmographies. I also found a bunch of pages questioning the reliability of IMDB that I can show you if you are interested.--Supernumerary 02:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• No Rotten Tomatoes external link? Or AMG?
  • now linked to these cites
• On a second look, you should be probably be using cite templates for your sources. See here.
• Good article overall. I want to see the film now since I've already seen The Man who Laughs.--Supernumerary 22:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like to say I can't stand these "Cast lists" that seem to riddle FAs, and welcome the fact this article has the "Cast" in prose format. LuciferMorgan 13:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Book (film)

• The goal is assessment as a Good article
• The peer review is requested by Ilse@ 18:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

---

[edit] Lead

• "It is the Dutch submission for the Academy Award" Shouldn't this be in the past tense?
  • I changed it, but since the nominations will be announced this month, I thought present tense was appropriate. - Ilse@ 06:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Black Book was the most visited Dutch film in 2006." Is "visited" the right word. I know what you're trying to say, but I think there might be a more common word (the most seen? the best attended? or the highest grossing?)
  • I changed the sentence to: "Black Book was the Dutch film with the highest box office gross in 2006." - Ilse@ 06:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "At the time of its release, it was the most expensive Dutch film ever made" Has anything surpassed it yet?
  • This is how WikiProject Films/Style guidelines proposed to state this information. It has not been surpassed, but this way the text remains correct when more expensive films will be released. - Ilse@ 06:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I added a link to a list of most expensive Dutch films, I think this solves the problem - Ilse@ 08:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed.--Supernumerary 23:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

• Why are you wikilinking the actors twice in the plot? It looks like you wrote one, wrote the other, and then forgot to remove the excess links.
  • I tried to remove these links already, but User:Patrick stated: "keep the links in the plot info to make it self-contained, the part before the spoiler warning is just for people who do not want to see the rest)". I disagreed with him, but didn't see a point in re-reverting it. I have now removed the links again. - Ilse@ 06:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The reason the links are unnecessary is that anyone who avoids the spoilers will get the links from the spoiler free section. Anyone who reads the spoilers will already have the links. Plus they're in the cast section.--Supernumerary 20:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "to flee the Nazi-occupied part of the Netherlands to the liberated southern part of the country, by boat" Change it "to flee from" to match "from" and "to". The "by boat" is tacked on, and you should trying playing around with the wording to make it fit better.
  • I changed the sentence to "In 1944, the young Jewish woman Rachel Steinn tries to flee by boat, together with her family and other Jews, from the Nazi-occupied part of the Netherlands to the liberated southern part of the country." - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "However, they are attacked by the Germans and she is the only survivor; she does not succeed in fleeing outside the occupied territory but is not caught." It needs a comma and to be reworded.
  • I have split and reworded the sentence. - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Rachel joins a resistance group, and under the alias Ellis de Vries manages to get friendly with the German SD officer Ludwig Müntze (Sebastian Koch), and to bug the office." Missing commas and one two many "and"s.
  • I have split the sentence. - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "She gets a job in the SD office. She really falls in love with Müntze. He is not as bad for the Dutch as other German officers. For example, he refuses to obey the rule to kill 40 innocent Dutch citizens to revenge the killing by the resistance group of a Dutch traitor. For this Müntze is imprisoned and sentenced to death." This is choppy. Did she get the job after bugging the office because then you could combine that sentence with the other easily (you could still combine it if not). "to revenge" should be "to avenge"
  • I have rewritten these sentences and used "to avenge". - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "The resistance group plans to free a number of their imprisoned men. Rachel is only willing to participate if they free Müntze too. Reluctantly they agree. However, the attempt fails and many prisoners and rescuers are killed." Choppy again.
  • I have rewritten the sentences. - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Rachel gets caught and imprisoned by the Nazis." change to "Rache is captured and imprisoned by the Nazis." One should try to avoid the word "get" whenever possible because it sounds informal.
  • I changed the sentence to the proposed "is captured". - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "They have discovered the bug and use it make the resistance group listening to the transmitted sound" How about dropping "listening to the transmitted sound"?
  • I removed the "listening to the ...". - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "The country is liberated, and Rachel is imprisoned as traitor. It turns out that physician Hans Akkermans, who supposedly was in the resistance movement, was actually involved in the devastatingly ending refugee trips, thus enriching himself. This man tries to kill Rachel with a large dose of insulin. She manages to survive by eating a lot of chocolate as an antidote." Lots of problems here.
  • "It turns out" is a colloquialism and should be avoided.
    • I removed the "It turns out". - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "devastatingly ending refugee trips" why not just "devastating refugee trips"? (or did he end them?(in that case it would be "devastatingly ending the refugee trips"))
    • I changed it to "devastatingly ending the refugee trips". - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "The country is liberated, and Rachel is imprisoned as traitor." Why not "When the country is liberated, Rachel ..."
    • I changed the sentence. - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "thus enriching himself" How exactly did he enrich himself? Paid off by the Germans? Robbed the dead refugees?
    • I am not sure this is in the film, so I would like to leave it open. - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "This man tries to kill Rachel with a large dose of insulin. She manages to survive by eating a lot of chocolate as an antidote." This could be made one sentence. "manages to survive" and "a lot" are both informal.
    • I changed both elements. - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Rachel's innocence is revealed" Revealed by her or discovered by someone else?
  • I changed it into "Rachel proves her innocence". - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "together with a man from the resistance they smuggle the physician and the money and jewels he has stolen, together in a coffin, to a quiet place, where they seal the coffin and slowly kill him by suffocation." Polysyndeton? It's also very awkward.
  • I have rewritten this sentence completely. - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Much better. Now we know what the black book from the title is.--Supernumerary 23:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "easily adapts to each situation" Should be in the past tense and maybe use "coped".
  • I have changed the sentence. - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I changed it as well. Take a look and see which you prefer.--Supernumerary 23:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Things seem idyllic for Rachel and her family... until bombs start going off in the distance, an air raid siren goes off and soldiers take positions at the front of the kibbutz. It's October 1956, and the Suez Crisis has broken out."
  • Do not use an ellipsis! You are not building suspense for the story but trying to inform a reader.
    • I have rewritten the sentence. - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "bombs start going off" They hear bombs in the distance? "start going off" is informal.
    • I have changed this too. - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikilink or explain "kibbutz".
    • I added a link to kibbutz. - Ilse@ 07:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "It's" should be "it is". Again formality is needed.
    • I changed it to "it is". - Ilse@ 07:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "has broken out" sounds informal.
    • I changed it to "started". - Ilse@ 07:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This paragraph is much better after your changes!--Supernumerary 23:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cast

• For the cast section only use appositives for those characters not described in the plot.
  • I removed the appositives. - Ilse@ 06:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You went one step too far. You definitely need the "Actor as Character". I've added them in.--Supernumerary 20:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it would be better to keep them, despite WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. - Ilse@ 07:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • They're just guidelines, so you can break them if you want.--Supernumerary 20:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• You should explain who Kees, Joop, Theo, Rob, and Maarten are.--Supernumerary 23:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have added explainations. - Ilse@ 00:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Production

• The writing section of production needs to be in the past tense.
  • I changed some present tense to past tense, but not the generic statements about the film/story that remain true. - Ilse@ 06:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "In Black Book the family of Rachel Steinn tries to cross in the Biesbosch, where these attempts actually took place." Maybe say that she tried to cross there in the plot.
  • I changed the sentence. - Ilse@ 09:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "to 'cross' to" Why the single quotes?
  • The word crossen is used in Dutch specifically in referring to these attempts. I changed the sentence to make it clearer. - Ilse@ 09:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "entrapped by Dutch policemen" Where the entrapped or trapped?
  • Jews that tried to flee with their belongings were entrapped, robbed and killed. I changed the sentence to make it clearer. - Ilse@ 09:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "San Fu Maltha, who produced the film together with three other producers, tried to economize on different parts such as the scenes in Israel, that could have been left out without changing the plot, but this was not negotiable for Paul Verhoeven." Long sentence that needs to be rephrased or split.
  • I have spit the sentence. - Ilse@ 09:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "It is said that Paul Verhoeven and San Fu Maltha paid for the trip to Israel out of their own salaries." Said by whom?
  • I do not remember the source, so until I do I have <!-- hidden --> the sentence. - Ilse@ 10:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Because of financing problems the filming did not start as planned in 2004,[6] but was delayed until August 2005.[7]" There should not be a comma there. It's your call whether to move the ref though.
  • I removed the comma and moved the reference. - Ilse@ 09:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "news got out" informal
  • I changed it to "was announced". - Ilse@ 09:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "coproduction" is a red link? Look for an appropriate section in production or elsewhere.
  • I cannot find any appropriate section about coproductions. - Ilse@ 09:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Wikilink one of the euro signs.
  • I added a wikilink. - Ilse@ 09:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Production company Fu Works and the creditors settled the case." How did they settle it? (Oh and you have an extra space after the period.)
  • I changed the sentence. - Ilse@ 10:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "There was attentention for details in the film. Several requisites were reproduced from originals from the 1940s" "Attention" is misspelled. I think it should be "attention to details". Also "originals" and "from the 1940s" is redundant.
  • I removed redundant "from originals". - Ilse@ 10:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "1100 or 1200 extra" not sure about wikistyle, but I would say add commas.
  • I leave it like this. - Ilse@ 10:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Already during the shooting" drop the "already".
  • I removed the word "Already". - Ilse@ 10:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reception

• "where it was part" change to "as part"
  • I changed it to "as part". - Ilse@ 10:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "HRH" What??
  • HRH means His Royal Highness, this is the formal style to refer to the prince, I included it in the link to make it more clear. - Ilse@ 06:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "were mayor of The Hague Wim Deetman, minister Hans Hoogervorst, and minister Karla Peijs." Appositives over one word should be set off with commas. I would suggest flipping what is the noun and what is the appositive here.
  • I flipped the noun and appositive for Wim Deetman. - Ilse@ 06:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "The Dutch press is divided about the film." Are they still?
  • I changed it into past tense. - Ilse@ 07:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Rutger Hauer" from Soldier of Orange?
  • She compares the two films and makes a remark about the main characters, I think "Rutger Hauer" should not be added in the first sentence. - Ilse@ 07:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Black book" should be italicized in the quote from the Observer, but I won't do it without checking the original.
  • It is bold in the original, so I didn't add italics in the quote. - Ilse@ 07:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• You consistently misspell "successful".
  • Thank you for changing these misspellings. - Ilse@ 07:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Golden Film (100,000 visitors)" Again I'm not sure if "visitors" is the right word (observers? spectators? audience?).
  • The Netherlands Film Fund uses 'cinema visits', 'visitors' and 'tickets sold' as equivalents in their (Dutch) press release. Since there are objections to 'visitors' I changed it to 'tickets sold'. - Ilse@ 07:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "most visited" viewed?
  • I changed this the same way as in the lead section. - Ilse@ 07:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "As of December 31, 2006 the box office gross-to-date" drop the "to-date", and change that sentence to the past tense.
  • I removed "-to-date". - Ilse@ 07:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "It won the award in three categories" maybe "it won in three categories"?
  • I changed it to "it won in three categories". - Ilse@ 07:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "The film is the Dutch submission" tense?
  • I changed this the same way as in the lead section. - Ilse@ 07:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of nominations and awards

• It needs cites for the award section (even if they are repeats).
  • I added references. - Ilse@ 09:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other

• You should consider adding what happened to their careers after the film, but it should pass GA regardless.--Supernumerary 01:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe it is still a little early to describe the influence of the film on the carreers of the actors. - Ilse@ 10:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have taken into account all the above remarks to improve the article. I hope it will pass the Good article nomination. - Ilse@ 11:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tears of the Black Tiger

I believe this is a good article. It is the most thorough compilation of facts about the film that I'm aware of. — WiseKwai 14:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 21:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

---

[edit] Introduction

• "With a story involving the tragic romance of a fatalistic, working-class hero who has become an outlaw and the upper-class daughter of a provincial governor, the movie is equal parts homage to and parody of Thai action movies of the 1950s and 1960s and melodramatic romantic tearjerkers." This sentence bothers me. First thing is the who clause needs to be off set to make it clear, especially because of the length of this sentence. "With a story involving" sounds wordy. Does the film parody all romantic tearjerkers or those from the same time as the action movies? You also mix calling it a "film" and a "movie". Pick one and be consistent. Here's a possible rephrasing, which I don't really like either, but it might help you out.
  • "The film centers on the tragic romance between a fatalistic, working-class hero, who has become an outlaw, and the upper-class daughter of a provincial governor. As such the film is equal parts homage to and parody of Thai action movies of the 1950s and 1960s and melodramatic romantic tearjerkers."
    • Took another shot at it.
• "the Dragons and Tigers Awards for Best New Director" Maybe you can find a wikilink for this, if not it's no big deal.
  • Vancouver International Film Festival article could stand some expansion to include details about this.
• "It was purchased for distribution in the United States by Miramax Films, which changed the ending and then shelved the film indefinitely." Rephrase from passive to active.
  • Done.
• You forgot one fair use rationale for Image:Tears5.jpg, and I also changed the fair use rationale for the poster to a more standard one. Otherwise they look good.
  • The one image I didn't upload. Surprised I missed it, though.

[edit] Plot and cast

• At first glance, the plot has lots of random wikilinks. White? Plain? Knife? Bullet? Beach? etc. Please cut out the unimportant ones.
  • I like white because it talks about what it represents. The others probably won't survive the cutting.
• The plot is approx. 1,890 words long. It needs to be condensed, and if that is not possible explain why.
  • Since condensing it will change everything, I won't proofread this section as my suggestions might end up being unnecessary. I'll gladly do it after the condensing though.
    • I knew it was too long, but had no idea it was that long. Yikes.
      • I've cut the plot down to 1,000 words, which is probably still too long. But have a look and see what you think, if you want.
• Are any of the other actors deserving of a wikilink in the cast section?
  • The other actors deserve a wikilink, but have no articles. I dislike the look of too many red links in cast sections, so ...
• Plot review follows
• "Dressed all in black and wearing a black cowboy hat, " I think you can cut the second black especially because you have a picture of it. Also specify the wikilink to the symbolism section.
• "The bullet ricochets around before it hits its target – a man's forehead." Why not simply "The bullet ricochets around before burrowing into a man's forehead."?
• "off a variety of items" possibly just "off of items" considering you wikilink Rube Goldberg
• How does the first paragraph, which is only two sentences, connect with the second one?
• "Mahesuan is bitter about Dum taking his place as the best gunman in the outlaw gang headed by the brutal Fai. Mahesuan finds Dum playing a harmonica. He knocks it out of Dum's hand and baits him into a gunfight. The quick-drawing Dum fires first. Mahesuan is not injured, but a dead snake drops from an overhanging tree branch onto Mahesuan's cowboy hat. Dum killed the venomous snake, saving Mahesuan's life." This is choppy; make it flow.
• "Dum then thinks back" You wikilink "thinks back" to "flashback", which does show that it is a flashback but only if someone clicks through. If it's important explicitly state it, otherwise leave it as is.
• "Dum then thinks back to his childhood 10 years ago during the Second World War, when Rumpoey and her father had to leave the city. They came to stay with Dum's father, a district chief, at their small farm in rural Thailand." He can't think back to what other people did when he wasn't there, so he should be the subject. Maybe:
  • "Dum then thinks back to his childhood 10 years ago during the Second World War, when Rumpoey and her father left the city to stay on Dum's father's small farm in rural Thailand."
• "which is called "Sala Awaiting the Maiden"" Why is this important? A wikilink (or a clause) to Sala would be nice to explain that.
• "Dum says a woodcutter built it to await the daughter of a wealthy family whom he had fallen in love with." You're missing a comma and "whom" currently refers to the wealthy family.
• "filled with some boys." Is the some needed?
• "On the way home, they collide with another boat that is filled with some boys. They taunt Rumpoey, and Dum fights with them. He is struck with an oar and the boat overturns. Dum rescues Rumpoey but is late in coming home. So he is punished by his father, who lashes the boy's back with a rattan cane. Rumpoey feels sorry for him and buys Dum a harmonica to replace the flute she broke." Needs to flow.
• "In shock at seeing Rumpoey's face, Dum is stabbed in the chest with his own knife and allows Kumjorn to escape." Ouch! I can see why he let him escape, but who stabbed him? (Active trumps passive most of the time.)
• "a gang of male students – the same boys from her childhood boat accident." Why not just a comma?
• "Dum comes to her rescue, but ends up expelled" You need to review comma usage. You use them when not needed and don't use them when needed. Your most common mistake is the one quoted, where you have a single subject with two verbs. Here a comma is unnecessary. Below you leave out a comma where you have two subjects with two verbs. In this case, a comma is necessary.
• "he’d given it" Don't use contractions.
• "Fai then hands Dum a pistol and tells him to finish the job of killing the men who murdered his father. Dum is now an outlaw." Join these two sentences.
• "Shifting back to the present, it is the night before Rumpoey's wedding." I'd make it "Shifting back to the present, where it is..."
• "Rumpoey tries to hang herself, but is stopped by her maid. Fai plans to attack the governor's mansion. Mahesuan, suspecting that Dum intentionally let Kumjorn go free, betrays Dum. A gun battle ensues, but Dum escapes." Choppiness caused by trying to link all plot lines together at once.
• Specify the wikilink for "white".
• "Fai's men attack and Mahesuan discovers Rumpoey. " Comma needed.
• "While carrying Rumpoey" Why is he carrying her?
• "A raindrop drips through a hole in the brim of Mahesuan's hat, distracting him. Dum fires first, blowing Mahesuan's head off." Join these two with a "when" or an "as".
• I would have made the comma changes myself, but I'm pressed for time at the moment.

[edit] Production

• "It also draws on 1960s and 1970s Thai action cinema, so-called by critics" While what it refers to should be obvious, I tend to use the noun if there is any doubt. "so-called" sounds really awkward. Why not just "called"? Or "know by critics as"?
  • Reworked that.
• "novels of Thai humorist Por Intharapalit and an old Thai pop ballad" Any appropriate wikilinks would be appreciated here.
  • I'll try to track down some info and start an article on Por Intharapalit.
• "Wisit said in an interview." Source?
  • An interview for the production notes. I've tacked the ref on at the end of each quote.
• I'm puzzled by whether "The Heavens Strike the Thief" should be capitalized and italicized in the lead, and if so should it be the same in Origins? Is it a common title in the English world, which is the way it comes across in the lead? In Origins it sounds like it's just a a translation, in which caseI would say no caps or italics.
  • It's not a standard English title, so I lower-cased it in the intro.
• "'depending on the film's context,' the director said. Source?
  • Same source as before.
• "Fah talai jone is also the Thai name for an herb, Andrographis paniculata." This has what to do with the price of tea in China? It's just tacked on and sounds like it was lifted from a trivia section. Put it in context, or if there is nothing beyond coincidence then just say "coincidentally".
  • I know that the director, like many Thais, takes great delight in puns and double meanings. At the cinema, silly puns will result in riotous laughter. It's really amazing. So probably the fact that there's an herb with the same name only heightens the meaning of the title. I reworked it so that this idea is clearer, I hope.
• "the directorial debut for Wisit" There's a case for using either "for" or "of" here, and they have different connotations. I don't know enough to have an opinion, but you should and I just wanted to alert you to it.
  • By Wisit?
    • That works too.
• "Production design was by Ek Iemchuen,[10]" Why is this cite in the middle of a sentence? I don't think you will be challenged to prove that Ek did the production design but that he was a classmate. Move the cite to the end.
  • Done.
• "likay (Thai folk opera)" I'm not a fan of parentheses. I'd say "likay, a form of Thai folk opera."
  • Or a Thai form of folk opera.
• "Wisit said in a 2001 interview." Is it really important where he said what he said? I don't think that's the case here, so you can drop it and let the cite do the work.
  • Done.
• "Over-saturated colors were used as part of the overall production design to reflect scenes of rural Thailand, which the director saw as bright and colorful." Consider dropping "as part of the overall production design".
  • Done
• "Walls on the sets and locations were painted pink or green, and lighting was used to achieve the desired effect, but the film was additionally treated in the color grading process." This is a run-on. Also what was the desired effect? If it's saturation just say so.
  • Done
• Nice work with the no-break space in 35 mm. :)
  • Thanks. I'm learning.
• "To experiment with the set design and lighting effects, Wisit was able to try them out in a commercial he directed for Wrangler Jeans, " "To experiment" and "to try them out" is redundant. Simplify.
  • Done.
• "whom the director said" Everytime the director says something I think it should be cited. I'm not sure if I'm the only one, but it's a good idea nonetheless.
  • Yes.
• "There are experienced actors in the cast as well, including Sombat Metanee and Naiyana Sheewanun, who worked in the era of Thai filmmaking that Wisit was trying to recreate." Very flat, try rephrasing.
  • Need to work on that some more. Can't think of any other way to say it.
• For the old-style marketing, what is the name of the book they made?
  • Same as the film.

[edit] Reception

• "in a wide release in Thai cinemas." What about changing the second "in" to a "to"?
  • Sure.
• "It won best costume design for designer Chaiwichit Somboon at the Thailand National Film Association Awards." Rephrase to avoid saying "design" and "designer".
  • Done.
• "The Bangkok Critics Assembly" wikilink?
  • Links provided to section of Cinema of Thailand article.
• "Ek Iemchuen" or "Ek Iamchuen"? (Oh damn, I just realized that's an "I" not a lower-case "L". Don't know how you could avoid that...)
  • IMDb really butchered the guy's name. Just did a correction.
• I'm totally for accent marks on "premiere", but that's just me.
  • Isn't premiere English? With the accents, it would be the French.
• Looking at the awards, you might want to reevaluate which ones you mention in the lead. You should mention some of the many Thai ones, or just that it won many Thai awards.
  • The Thai awards weren't that prestigious. If it had won best picture or best director I could see mentioning it up higher. It can be said in the intro, though, that it won many awards in Thailand.
• "It also had theatrical releases in the United Kingdom, France and Japan." This bothers me because it makes it sound like the film owns these things. I don't know if you understand that, but I'd change it to "It was also theatrically released in ..."
  • Done.
• "Because of its blending of genres, colorful production design and conspicuous action, it has achieved cult status." Seems like every film I find has a cult now. Can this be proved?
  • I have junked the cult status of the film, even though it probably exists. However, I can't prove it.
• You're mixing standards again. Either use ' "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet." ' or ' "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet". '.
  • What can I say? I'm an American working for a publication that uses British English. Most days, I don't know whether I'm coming or going.
• "Edelstein wrote in a review for the film's 2007 US release" Don't know if this clause is necessary. Completely up to you to keep or cut.
  • Cut it.

[edit] Distribution

• "A string of limited releases is set for January-March 2007 with a Region 1 DVD release planned thereafter. It is the original version of the film." Incorporate that last sentence like you did in the lead.
  • Okay.
• "Miramax changed the ending" Is there any more info on this? What did they change it to? Why change it? Why shelve it? etc.
  • Miramax routinely edited foreign films they purchased. I should be able to reference this. As for why it was shelved, that's more difficult to explain, but I'll try to find a reference.
• The section heading "Distribution and DVD" could be changed to just "Distribution".
  • Okay.

[edit] Soundtrack, miscellanae

• "I'm so alone, so lonesome I could die" Should there be a period for this last line?
  • I don't know. I try it out.
• "See also: Music of Thailand" Is this needed?
  • Probably not.
• Is this on any other language wiki?
  • I'll check. Seems like French Wikipedia should have it, and possibly Thai as well.
• I'm not sure, but I think categories are supposed to alphabetized.
  • You're right, they are.
• Where the hell did the interview come from? The link is to just a text dump.
  • It's a Japanese Thai film website. Parts of the interview are used in the Russian mirror of the Film Bangkok site. I believe it to be from the production notes.
• The linebreaks in the soundtrack section are annoying, but what can you do?
  • That's the standard from WP:ALBUM.
    • I figured as much, but the way the tracks are sometimes split across two lines is bothersome. It's only a minor aesthetics issue though.
• Nice use of the auto-PR, and this article should pass GA once the plot is fixed.--Supernumerary 04:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks, again, for your hard work on this. I promise this will be the last peer review I seek for awhile. I'll try to pitch in with some myself. — WiseKwai 07:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Last Waltz

I think this is possibly a good article, or maybe even featured article. I've put a lot of work into it, but feel it probably needs more. I'm hoping some other folks can help out and possibly get me pointed in the right direction. — WiseKwai 20:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

---

• Fair use rationales needed for: Image:Rickdankolastwaltzstill.jpg, Image:Garthhudsonlastwaltzscreens.jpg, Image:RobbieR.png, Image:Lastwaltzlogo.gif.
• The lead needs to be expanded to summarize the article (see WP:LEAD).
  • I've expanded the lead a bit. What other aspects of the article need to be brought up in the intro?
    • I'd say add in a paragraph about the production of the documentary.--Supernumerary 20:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "an essay of" I've never heard this before, and I think it should be "an essay on".
• "The group then backed Bob Dylan in the 1960s, and Dylan performs with The Band towards the end of the concert." Rephrase. The then makes one think after Hawkins is their guest.
• "Other artists perform with The Band and cover musical history and various genres" Awk. Rephrase.
• "in concert order" change to "chronologically" or "in chronological order" (I prefer the former.)
• "Robertson talks about Hudson joining the band on the condition that the other members pay him $10 a week each for music lessons so he could tell his parents he was music teacher, instead of squandering his classical training playing in a rock and roll band." Long. The instead doesn't really hold it together. Try reading it out loud to see what I mean.
• "The live performances" Maybe change to "live songs".
• The whole last paragraph of the summary does not flow.
  • I need to take another crack at that.
• "The idea for a farewell concert came about early in 1976 after Richard Manuel was seriously injured in a boating accident, and Robbie Robertson began giving thought to leaving the road, envisioning The Band becoming a studio-only band, similar to The Beatles' decision to stop playing live shows in 1966." Split into two sentences.
• "then the notion was hatched" Change to active.
• "Starting from 5:00 p.m., the audience of 5,000 was served turkey dinners and treated to ballroom dancing and music by the Berkeley Promenade Orchestra. The concert started at 9:00 p.m." You can make this one sentence.
• ", with McClure reciting the introduction from The Canterbury Tales in the original Chaucerian dialect." This clause is just tacked on. Maybe move it to the performances list?
• "16mm" and "35mm" Insert a non-breaking space.
• "metastasized into" ?? "metastasized" is a very clinical word that to mean only means the spreading of cancer through the body. How about the much simpler and clearer "grew into" (did you mean "metamorphosized into"?)
  • Metastasized was a term left by an earlier editor. I know what it means, and shouldn't have left it there. Embarrassing.
    • Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you didn't know what "metastasized" means. I should have thrown in an "as far as I know".
• "a backdrop on the stage" Again I haven't heard "on" used this way and I would suggest changing it to "for".
• "all the cameras were shut down as Muddy Waters was to perform "Mannish Boy", all the cameras that is except one – László Kovács'." Redundant and showy.
  • Thing is, I knew I was being redundant and showy, and I went ahead and did it anyway. Again, embarrassing.
• Who is Bill in "Dylan's refusal"?
• "a MGM" I'm not sure but I think it should be "an" because of the pronunciation. (Say it yourself and see if you agree. The first "M" is said "em".)
• "Among the things fixed in post-production" wordy.
• ", listed among the films considered the greatest ever" strange placement. Should be moved or the whole sentence rephrased.
• "(As Clapton was taking his first solo on "Further on Up the Road", his guitar strap came loose. Clapton said "Hold on," but Robertson picked up the solo without missing a beat.)" Why the parentheses?
• ", claiming that the film was shot to make The Band look like Robbie Robertson's side-men." again strange placement, as if tacked on. Move/rephrase.
• "He complains about Manuel's and Hudson's minimal screen time, an example being "I Shall Be Released" where Manuel sings part of the song (as he did on Music from Big Pink) with Bob Dylan (who wrote the song) but the viewer sees only either the whole array of performers (besides Manuel, who is hidden behind them) or Robertson, Van Morrison and Dylan." Drop the parenthetical remarks and considered changing "an example being" to "such as when".
• "There are several shots catching Ronnie Hawkins looking around but not singing, yet Manuel is invisible." Change to "yet Manuel remains invisible"
• "the film was remastered, given a new theatrical print and Robertson remixed the sound." faulty parallelism.
• "The DVD features a commentary track by Robertson and Scorsese and a featurette, Revisiting The Last Waltz, and a gallery of images from the concert, the studio filming and the film premiere." What's with the extra "and"s? Or are you going for polysyndeton? ;)
  • Not sure what I was trying for there.
• "The original soundtrack album was originally" redundant
• "includes many songs not in the film, including" try to avoid repeating using "including" so close to "includes"
• "and the set with Bob Dylan extended even further" change to "and a further extended set with Bob Dylan"
• "In his "mockumentary", This Is Spinal Tap, director Rob Reiner references The Last Waltz, calling himself "Marty DiBergi" in a play on Scorsese's name and interviewing the members of the fictional band in a similar manner to Scorsese's talks with The Band." Break into two sentences or rephrase. You have a habit of trying to incorporate too many ideas into one sentence.
• "Summary" change to "Summary of the film" or "Plot summary" or some such thing. At a glance, one thinks it is a summary of the article.
• Oh and consider running it through an automatic peer review (it would have caught some things I mentioned here).
  • Will do, as soon as I figure out what it is.

--Supernumerary 23:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• • This is my first peer review. It is a most humbling experience, but I am glad I did it. Thanks for the work! I have implemented most of your suggestions. Thanks again. — WiseKwai 14:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I think it should easily pass the GA process. As for FA, I'm not as familiar with that process. FA would probably frown on the many fair use images and the lists. They're very careful about the style of the prose. They might also want additional cites. Oh, I just noticed you didn't use cite web or cite news. Both GA and FA will want that so go get them here. (You could also take a look at categories to see if anymore apply (like English language films and American films).)

As for the automated peer review, here is a link to it. It's easy to use once you install it. Here is what it generates when I run it for the article:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.
• 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==.
• Avoid using contractions like: wasn't, hadn't.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Supernumerary 20:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

---

• This article has clearly came a long way since creation; however, Peer Review focuses on areas for improvement, so here goes: the article is unpleasant to the eye - images aligned to the left rather than default right always appear as if there is an error in the WikiCode, and clutters up the screen. In particular, the images in the "Performances" section really ruin the image of the table. Apart from that, I am not knowledgeable on the topic of the Last Waltz so I can't comment on the content, but you appear to have your sources sorted so just sort the images, and keep improving the prose right up until you choose to let it go for WP:FA status, and you're in for a chance. Regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 22:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Sorry it has taken me so many days to come back to this page and respond. I don't see any problems with the images in either Firefox or Explorer. The right-facing Danko image is so placed per suggestions in the Manual of Style. The table also renders just fine for my eyes today. I'm not trying to argue that there aren't problems. I just can't see them. — WiseKwai 09:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chickerball

I want to get this article up to GA standard, but don't know what info to include. RockerballAustralia 06:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• "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." Sorry, but, you might want to get a group of people together to write an article so style experts (and people who nose around like myself) can try to critique it. It's hard to review nothing. You should look at the film featured articles in WP:FA#Media and that might give you an idea of what a film needs to become featured. gren グレン 11:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Also, the article is based on a film that won't be released until 2008. It is highly unlikely that a film will be rated as a GA until the film is released as details can considerably change, the film may be cancelled, actor/director could change, etc. It is best to wait after the film is released so that all appropriate information can be added of its reception, box office, etc. to help improve the article. Consider looking to another article right now that has already been released that you can work on bringing to GA and wait until this one is released before trying to bring it to GA. --Nehrams2020 22:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Borat! Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

Article has received Good Article status, but I am interested in possibly getting this to A-class or Featured status. I know there's a fact tag, I added it in a rewrite to add some information without being accused of anti-Semitism. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 12:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you put it on film peer review, where you'll get more informed critiques? Daniel Case 17:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that. Daniel Case 18:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Case

Some comments based on a quick perusal. And a disclosure that, long ago, I added the material about "Everbody's Talkin'" and "Born To Be Wild" as allusions to Midnight Cowboy and Easy Rider, so I have some small claim to authorship. But it is so little that I can review this impartially.

• First, get rid of all the international release dates save those for English-speaking countries. It makes the infobox go on way too long. This is the English Wikipedia and that's the primary audience. Release dates for non-English speaking nations can be mentioned in the article if need be. Take a look at what I did in another article under review, The Devil Wears Prada.

• Maybe you could subdivide that section on participants' responses a little? It's a bit long even if it is thematically unified.

More later. Daniel Case 19:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm sitting down going through a hard copy with a red pen to catch all the usual copy errors and I'll do a copy edit later. I would add:

• Move the {{endspoiler}} tag to the end of the production section. You have spoilers there, too.

• "By reviewers" and "At the box office" should be renamed "Critical" and "Commercial" as the equivalent subsections in other film articles are.

• "...the 41st best opening week earnings in the UK at that time." Is that really notable? Only if it were in the top ten, IMO.

• The German comedy award is perhaps not relevant on the English Wikipedia.

• You don't need to mention, much less link, Midnight Cowboy and "Everybody's Talkin'" twice in the same sentence.

OK, I've gone through, did my copyedit and even made some of these changes. I have left some things to you to defend (the German comedy award, the 41st best opening week in Britain). But two more suggestions:

• I think you could replace the table on the week-by-week gross (not really encylopedic info) with {{Infobox movie certificates}} (the film ratings in each country where that info is available).

• You could probably do more with the criticism of the movie as anti-American. A lot of conservative commentators sounded off on this one; David Brooks[1] and John Tierney[2] put it on the New York Times op-ed page, and Christopher Hitchens has this interesting take at Slate if you can't or don't want to get behind the Times registration firewall.

Daniel Case 16:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bourne Identity

I have recently completely re-written the article and am hoping to nominate it for a GA review and eventually get it to, cross fingers, FA status. I've attempted to find as much information on the film's production as possible and have modelled it on the smaller film articles such as Latter Days and Dog Day Afternoon. As this is my first attempt, I'm not entirely sure if it has the essentials or the potential but I'm hoping more experienced editors can have a look and see what needs doing. Thanks. Qjuad 15:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As soon as you provide the source and fair use rationale for Image:BourneIdentityfilm.jpg, it can be considered for a Good Article class.--Crzycheetah 01:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have updated Image:BourneIdentityfilm.jpg with the appropriate license, a source and a fair use rationale.Qjuad 02:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)