Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Peer review/Mom and Dad
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Mom and Dad 
Currently a good article candidate, has a general peer review ongoing. However, since it's a film that's been entered into the National Film Registry, I'd like to get some input from film project folks as well, with a desire to possibly bring it to featured status (like its producer, Kroger Babb, is about to). Any help would be appreciated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing about the cast, who plays what part, even if the actors are not in Wikipedia. Shane (talk/contrib) 15:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Any suggestions on how without ruining the prose?
- Normally cast sections aren't in prose, they are just a bulletted list or table (which I'm sure you know). Cbrown1023 18:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I reviewed the featured articles with films. It seems like there's no consistency. Some (Jaws, Summer of '42) don't bother with casting at all. Some (V for Vendetta, Casablanca) have detailed bullet points. One (Dog Day Afternoon) does the table thing. I'll see if I can't try something - the actors are so secondary, it's almost an afterthought, but I don't have the official cast list with me now. I'll reply back when I've added it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Normally cast sections aren't in prose, they are just a bulletted list or table (which I'm sure you know). Cbrown1023 18:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Any suggestions on how without ruining the prose?
- Plot & Porudction could also be expanded, Reception looks pretty good. Cbrown1023 15:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- The somewhat interesting part of this is that the plot and production itself are a rather minor part of its overall fame. The film's importance comes more in regards to how it was marketed and its influence on the genre rather than its actual plot, which was fairly unoriginal, and production, which was fairly typical. Combine that with the fact that there really isn't much else that can be said that isn't original research - I'm fairly certain I've touched upon every available piece of literature regarding the film, sans awaiting contact from the NFR. Thanks for the header change, BTW, I was never comfortable with "statistics." --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Cbrown1023 18:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- The somewhat interesting part of this is that the plot and production itself are a rather minor part of its overall fame. The film's importance comes more in regards to how it was marketed and its influence on the genre rather than its actual plot, which was fairly unoriginal, and production, which was fairly typical. Combine that with the fact that there really isn't much else that can be said that isn't original research - I'm fairly certain I've touched upon every available piece of literature regarding the film, sans awaiting contact from the NFR. Thanks for the header change, BTW, I was never comfortable with "statistics." --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
