Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

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

Contents 1 Instructions 1.1 Requesting a review 1.2 Responding to a request 1.3 Archiving 2 Requests 2.1 Aladdin (1992 film) 2.2 Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow 2.3 Once Upon a Forest 2.4 GoldenEye 2.5 Fritz the Cat (film) 2.6 Zodiac (film) 2.7 Sinbad (actor) 2.7.1 The ikiroid 2.7.2 Yannismarou 2.8 The Godfather 2.9 300 (film) 2.9.1 Quadzilla99 2.10 The Bourne Identity 2.11 Blue Velvet 2.11.1 Lenin and McCarthy 2.12 The Hudsucker Proxy 2.12.1 AnonEMouse 2.13 JFK (film) 2.14 Chickerball 2.15 Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation 2.16 Sullivan Bluth Studios 2.17 Dreamgirls (film) 2.17.1 Cbrown1023 talk 2.17.2 Wiki-newbie 2.17.3 Erikster 2.18 Jurassic Park (film) 2.18.1 Erikster 2.18.2 Hal Raglan 2.18.3 LordHarris 2.18.4 Update 3 Archives

[edit] Instructions

[edit] Requesting a review

Consider running the article through an automated peer review first. This will catch common errors, saving you and the reviewer time.

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

[edit] Responding to a request

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

[edit] Archiving

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

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

[edit] Requests

[edit] Aladdin (1992 film)

Based on The Lion King's article, I've made some edits in a period of 5 days in order to turn Aladdin into a GA[1]- and it passed. Now, I need to know what's needed in order to improve it to an FA (despite turning the "Characters and voices" prose instead of a table, I'll take care of this later) igordebraga ≠ 23:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded a picture of the DVD and video covers. The article should also be moved to Aladdin (film) because there are no other Aladdin films are on Wikipedia, and the page currently redirects to Aladdin (1992 film) anyway. Aladdin is my favourite children's movie. --thedemonhog talk contributions 03:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

I think that this article has real potential to reach GA status. All it needs is to be cleaned up some more. I've already gone in and added citations to all the necessary places (except for one and I may just delete that bit) but it could still use some additional editing, clean-up, etc. Any suggestions, comments, etc. would be greatly appreciated. Count Ringworm 19:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The most readily apparent change that needs to be made is the inclusion of references and clean-up for the Homages section. If you can't find any reliable sources for that section, I would remove it. Also, the images need fair use rationales. --Brandt Luke Zorn 21:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Once Upon a Forest

This is my third visit to Film PR. Right now, I am in the midst of getting an article about one of my favourite cartoons to FA level, on or before Easter, as promised in a previous edit summary of mine and on my to-do list. Thanks to Jerry Beck's Animated Movie Guide (I now have it amid an inter-library loan) and various web sources, the page is now starting to get complete.

Except maybe for the screenshots: while images may or may not be pre-requisites for all FAs, for me it's something else. I have the film on my laptop, but, sad to say, our battery's wiring has most certainly run its course. So, on the family PC, I'm trying to do my best without them.

If you see anything in the article that has to be cleaned or fixed (see also this list for potential ideas), please let me know. Wish me the best of luck by the deadline. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 03:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GoldenEye

I think this page is ready for FA status. It's a Good Article, and done a lot of work on it, especially the plot section to shorten it up and remove some redundancies. Hopefully there won't be any major problems, and this can be nominated for Featured Article in a short short. ColdFusion650 21:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fritz the Cat (film)

I'd like to submit this article as a featured article candidate. Comments, questions? (Ibaranoff24 22:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

Good article. No issues on first glance, though perhaps the lead might need trimming down to 3 paragraphs to satisfy the FA crowd.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 09:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zodiac (film)

A lot of work has been done on this entry and I think it is not far away from either GA or FA status with maybe a little more input and advice from others. I would appreciate any help or suggestions you may have. Count Ringworm 17:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

All dates need linking. Plot could be expanded considering it's close to three hours. WikiNew 18:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Plot definitely could use expansion, also a 1-2 fair use pics could be added to the production section. Quadzilla99 04:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally I changed one or two things—saying reviews have been generally positive when it got an 87% score on rottentomatoes, strikes me as suffering from wiki NPOV paranoia. With numbers like that it's well within reason to say they've been highly positive. The actors complaints don't belong in the post-production section, also the MPAA and Box office sections are hopeless one sentence stubs, either expand them or merge them under a section called simply "Reaction". Here's a couple of phrases that could be put into more formal language:

"he was raised in Marin County during the Zodiac Killer's reign of terror." Replace reign of terror with active years or something of the sort.

Addressed by Ringworm. Quadzilla99 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Graysmith went from cartoonist to crime-stopper." Very hokey.

Addressed by Ringworm. Quadzilla99 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Fincher was keen to work with Shire" This might be British language, sounds informal to me.

Addressed by Ringworm. Quadzilla99 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Also as a side note I've never seen the film so I didn't read the plot section, so I don't know if that needs work. Quadzilla99 04:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all of these helpful suggestions. I've implemented several of them already. Count Ringworm 14:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay nice work, I'll look it over again today or tomorrow and see what else I can point out. Quadzilla99 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sinbad (actor)

I've tried to expand this as much as I can. Besides how jumbled "Films and other projects" is, how does the article stack up? The aim is to get it to featured status within a month. -- Zanimum 19:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The ikiroid

Wow! I'm glad you've taken on such a project—although FA is really difficult to attain. In your case, I would go for GA instead. That being said, I see a few problems with the article. The recentism needs to be fixed, and the multiple single-sentence paragraphs need to be merged together. Also, the article needs to be expanded, and the prose needs to be severely rewritten so that it flows. Right now, it reads like a timeline (In 1991, he did this. In 1994, he did that. In 1999, he did something else). On the flip side, the article is cited quite nicely. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Nice start, but it needs further work. This is my review:

• Maybe you could expand a bit more the lead per WP:LEAD.
• I don't like very much stubby sections, where a quote is longer than the prose like "Military service".
• "Under the professional name Sinbad,[6] he began his career appearing on Star Search, Sinbad won his round against fellow comedian Dennis Miller,[7] appearing a total of seven times." If this is really one sentence, it is not nice. In general, you should improve the overall prose, which is often prose and not "professional". Further problematic prose: "While Bonet only stayed with the program for a season,[8] Sinbad stayed with the cast from 1988 until 1991 as "Coach Walter Oakes"."
• "With the exception of later addition Marissa Tomei to the cast, the students at Hillman were all high-achieving African Americans with unique personalities, contrary to the "token" roles previously focused on." I don't get something here: the College is fictional; Tome is a real actor. Are you talking about her or about the character she plays. The whole Hillman analysis in these two paragraphs looks to me confusing.
• "Films and other projects" is spread with one-sentence paragraphs and looks listy. I see the same problem is other sections as well. This is not nice for a prose that flows badly and seamlessly.
• I think that all the quotes in "Sinbad in pop culture", although from TV series, should be cited.--Yannismarou 13:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Godfather

• Wikipedia:Peer review/The Godfather/archive1

I am planning on rewriting this article for GA and then FA status. Any suggestions would be helpful. :) The Filmaker 02:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Extend production information.
• Cite differences from plot, don't make it part of synopsis.
• Get better pictures, like everybody around Vito at the wedding and the aftermath of Michael committing his first kill.

WikiNew 19:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• The Cast section seems more like a Characters list. Perhaps reverse the actor/character order and make it so?
• Combine, in some way, the three tiny paragraphs about people who auditioned.
• Citation 10 is blank.
• More pictures would, indeed, be good.
• I added a number of "citation needed"s. Please find sources for those sentences.

Polymathematics 17:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 300 (film)

The article is currently part of a hot debate (hence sprotection for the past week), but many of a wide variety of editors have been working diligently to work and rework the article to both properly represent current controversies as well as the unique production and surprise success of the film. It is very well referenced, well written, and once the vandals back off a little more (it's already begun to quiet down), we plan to nominate the article for GA status. With this goal in mind, any and all outside opinions and suggestions are very much welcome. Please help us improve the fourth (or is it third now?) most popular article on Wikipedia. María: (habla conmigo) 16:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Fourth. Anyway, I'd recommend going through the references and using {{cite news}} for proper referencing. WikiNew 16:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quadzilla99

Well, I'm not a member of the WikiProject and haven't seen the film yet, but I'll comment anyway. Here are some points to consider:

• Some of the wording in the Historical accuracy section needs watching. A nice subtle way to smuggle in your point of view is to put all the dissenting view points in "person x claims" and "x states that historical record states", while putting your viewpoints "in x dismisses" and "x points to historical research" this is done in making the case that the film is not historically accurate. Instead of dismisses and points to historical research "this point is debated by x who states or claims that" and "x states (or claims) that the historical record is actually different" are more fair and less subtly devious. Claims implies doubt of the statement's accuracy, I would just use states in both cases. Basically try to use the same wording for both points of view and let the facts do the talking while hopefully presenting them in an accurate, even handed manner. If one side's facts genuinely dominate another's it should be clear and obvious to everyone.

Most of that has since been removed, and further additions will be smited into neutral phrasing. Arcayne 21:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• The image with comic and film spliced together has no source information, please explain how it was made and where the two images came from. This is done well on the other image with two images spliced together and should serve as an example.

The fact it comes from the comic book and film should quell many copyright sniffers. WikiNew 19:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It still needs source info for attribution purposes, as a matter of fact it's only a matter of time until it's tagged by the bot as not specifying the source and creator of the image. Quadzilla99 20:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

These are the two sources, here and here and I'm going to add them. The first one is from the actual website that put the images together, the second is where "our" image came from because it was resized on the other screen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• The last two paragraphs in the Political aspects section probably belong in the critical reaction section or perhaps could just be deleted as there are already several negative reviews quoted in length in the critical reaction section. The whole political aspects section seems unnecessary to me. Perhaps it could be just mentioned elsewhere that the film has been interpretated using contemporary political views but there is no evidence it was made that way (especially given the source inspiring it was written in 1998) and the filmmakers have denied it. Maybe it needs to stay as there obviously has been some debate about it but I would delete it. It seems like someone used that section as a chance to include several more negative reviews quoted at length. Basically I would suggest to perhaps eliminate the section and mention it briefly elsewhere (There's already a Persian depiction section which could house some of this info) and pick 2-3 of the most essential negative reviews to use in the critical reaction section.

This strikes me as an interesting point; as I wrote quite a bit of that section I'll briefly give my reasoning here. The question of the film's contemporary political relevance became a major topic of discussion immediately after it was first screened, and I thought it was worthwhile to track that discussion, giving Snyder's replies throughout. (Snyder's replies, incidentally, are quite nuanced, if colloquial, and don't simply consitute a "denial"; more a subtle understanding of the way a film takes on a life of its own once it is released.) That's the first half of the section. The second half charts a major theme in the film's reception by significant critics (i.e. "fascist aesthetics" and the like). Here again, I've attempted to provide balance by supplying demurrals by other critics and by Snyder himself. I don't think these reviews belong in the main "critical reaction" section, which is concerned with more traditional subjects (style, characterization, etc.). Nor do they belong in the "depictions of Persians" section -- the questions of androgyny, mysticism, etc., that are appropriate to that section are not addressed. In general I think the "historical accuracy," "political aspects," and "depiction of Persians" sections provide good coverage of specific significant themes in the film's reception, thus providing some structure to the "reception" section and preventing "critical reaction" from becoming a formless laundry list. But they may all need to be trimmed. --Javits2000 10:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it's a suggestion. Like I said if it is genuinely a large and reported enough issue it will deserve it's own section, but if it's just a temporary reaction that has no merit and will die down in a matter of days. It should deleted or mentioned briefly in my opinion. Also, be aware that to people who aren't as in to the film as you are the endless detail and subdivision might look like needless overanalysis. The statement that "films take on a life of their own" looks like classic reificiation in it's most pure sense to me. I feel it's pretty absurd personally. Correct me if I'm worng, but the film was written in 1998 and is closely based on the original story hence there is no way it could have been made with current political events in mind. The idea that the film is floating around out there in some nebular region developing a mind, consciousness, and life of it's own, is kind of like when ancient philosphers would get so detached from reality they would ask questions like, "What happens when Liberty confronts Justice?" or when "Will confronts Eternity?" Forgetting for a second that those concepts are nothing more than adjectives created by human beings to describe things. Quadzilla99 10:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. For the record I'm not so interested in the film itself (although I did enjoy it) as I am in its reception (i.e. as a discourse -- now there's an article that could use some copy-editing!), so naturally I give greater weight to these sections. Whether or not any political allegory could have been intended by the creators, the fact that such a reading has been repeatedly bandied about by the press strikes me as an interesting historical phenomenon in its own right. But I recognize that someone who is less interested in the subject will probably have to slash these sections -- just as I've slashed "marketing" (see below)! In any case, thanks for your remarks; I think they're on point and very useful.--Javits2000 11:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for taking as what they were meant to be: helpful advice. Quadzilla99 19:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

While not legitimizing the validity of the current uproar or comparisons to current events, it would appear that certain stories, or the methods of communicating them are timesless, i.e. East vs, West, Good vs. Evil, Pure vs. Polluted, Invader vs, Defender, etc. When the earlier film version of Thermopylae was made, comparisons were made between it and the Cold War. All politics is allegory, as all history is repeated. Seen in that context, the grasping at 300 as a sign of the times is to be expected. For that reason, maintaining the political reaction with a minimalist eye will likely work in the long run. Arcayne 22:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Marketing section contains a lot of trivial cruft and short sentences which look like they were converted from a bulleted trivia list. Condense the paragraphs to two or three and eliminate the cruft.

That's all for now, if it looks like I'm being harsh I'm just being thorough. I actually came here as I saw the article and thought "Damn this is a pretty good article for a new movie" and went to the talk page as I wondered what it was rated. I expected it to be a GAC or undergoing something like this and wanted to come comment. Quadzilla99 18:26, 17 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)

[edit] Blue Velvet

I would like to get this article in shape to reach GA status and would like any constructive criticism, comments, suggestions, etc. to improve it. Thanks. Count Ringworm 19:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lenin and McCarthy

Without giving it a detailed read, I can say that you should probably try to shorten the plot section and merge relevant information in the trivia section into the rest of the article, as the page already reccomends. Also, the deleted scene picture without any accompanying text should either be explained or removed. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 14:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Hudsucker Proxy

This is something of an underrated film even among fans of the Coen brothers. I think that the article is already off to a good start but I would like to improve it even more. Any helpful suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Count Ringworm 19:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, you have an easy first step of fair use rationale for images.

I'd move the budget into production--at least the numbers if you think most expensive Cohen film at the time is important then keep that. But, I'd definitely make the intro probably two more fleshed out paragraphs and no hanging sentences like the Wheel of Fortune one. Like how Casablanca (film) does it. gren グレン 11:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these suggestions. I'll give it a go. Count Ringworm 19:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AnonEMouse

• Lead is way too short. See WP:LEAD. One good suggestion from there is to include at least part of a sentence about every important section of the article.
• Why so much on the music in the lead? Was it that important in the movie? I recommend moving the music down into a section of its own. Was there a soundtrack released?
• first section, wikilink New Years Eve, Hula hoop, frisbee.
• Norville is chased down the street by an angry mob to the Hudsucker building - what made the mob angry?
• Moses stops the clock and time freezes - huh? Need to explain Moses's mystical powers a bit more. If he has divine powers, why does he have to fight Aloysius - or is Aloysius also more than human? Heck, what are M and A's motivations?
• goes on to "rule with wisdom" - rule what, the company? why the quote marks?
• action."[1]One - need a space after the ref
• Production - wikilink skyscraper, since it's so important
• While trying to sell their feature film debut Blood Simple, - be more specific, give a date
• the scale after Citizen Kane (1941).- in what sense is the scale based on a famous movie?
• it was a box office flop, grossing less than $3,000,000 in the US. - this needs to be moved after the test shootings text, don't you think? In fact, I'd move it all the way to Reaction.
• More reaction - this only describes immediate reaction, what about reaction over the last 15 years? Any more recent films based on it, any more recent reviews, retrospectives, references?
• References - the Retrieved on dates are red links, try again, maybe need leading 0s? Also some refs have double double quotes, as in ""A Rock on the Beach,"
• External links - describe the links more. Coenesque - isn't there a more specific subpage for this film?

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JFK (film)

I think this article is well on its way to achieving a GA status and would like some help and/or comments speed up the process on this important film. Many thanks! Count Ringworm 15:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Academy Awards section could be turned into prose. Also, get rid of the Trivia section. --Crzycheetah 01:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the intro expanded per WP:LEAD, candidate paragraphs would be about the box office and about the critical/historical controversy and reception, both of which are reasons this film is notable. Kaisershatner 14:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I've made some improvements to the article based on your comments. Count Ringworm 20:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be great if you could add a better distribution of sources, it looks like you use the same few for the inline citations. You should use some online resources, I'm sure you can find some more information there to include within the article. --Nehrams2020 07:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the reaction section is going to have to be worked on, I would eliminate all validity discussions related to the film's theories and redirect them to the relevant articles here on Wikipedia. Otherwise you're never going to get it to GA status. I'd just keep it to the critical reactions and not get too deeply into whether the theories are correct or incorrect, that's probably the only you'll be able to keep that section managebale. Quadzilla99 00:59, 21 March 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] Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation

See also: February 2006 FAC and December 2005 PR

I am sorry to say that, after working so hard to get this page featured the last time, it really is a mess. One of my first efforts on WP has now turned into a mediocre shadow of its past self. The Plot section is really getting on my nerves, even when it is true I started the article; it got so long, it split off into its own article during FAC, and returned to the root page recently.

I am trying once again to get it back to FA, or even more suitably, GA level. (Sorry again if I'm still hunting down the production details...) --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 04:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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

• 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.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • it has been
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• 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, xxpor ^yo!|_{see what i've done} 01:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sullivan Bluth Studios

This is an article about a famous studio headed by one of the world's most famous animators, Don Bluth. This might be WP's second good article on a cartoon company (after Nelvana). How close has it come to achieving this? --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 00:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• fix the redlinks in the intro
• name the films that achieved poor results and that were in production during the budgetary crisis

Interesting article so far! Kaisershatner 15:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hello, this is Matticus78, and I wrote most of the article as it stands at present. I came across it at the end of November last year while on new page patrol, and it wasn't in the best of condition[2] (short, unreferenced and not very accurate). Animation history is an interest of mine, so I made it a project to rewrite the page (merging some content from the already existing article Sullivan Bluth Productions[3]). Frankly, I was surprised that Wikipedia didn't already have a good article on the studio, considering its importance. Anyway, I did a lot of research to get the article up to scratch, and basically rewrote the whole thing piece by piece over the course of a couple of months. I'd love to see this article given that bit of spit-and-polish that it needs to get it up to GA or even FA standards. The weak points I can currently see is the redlink for Morris Sullivan and (somewhat less important) Aurora Productions, both important entities in the studio's history, but I haven't been able to come up with much useful information on him. Also, the lack of pictures representing the studio's later productions is a bit of a problem, but it's hard to find any Sullivan Bluth films on the shelves any more, much less their not-so-successful ones. Anyway, I'll do my bit to pitch in during this peer review and help address concerns and suggested improvements. ~Matticus ^T_C 23:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, I created a stub article for Aurora Productions to deal with that redlink. Still can't find any good, solid information on Morris Sullivan outside his involvement with Bluth, and his being a mergers and acquisition broker (albeit semi-retired by the time he met Bluth). ~Matticus ^T_C 00:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dreamgirls (film)

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

[edit] Cbrown1023 talk

• The article seems great!
  • Lots of refs
  • Covers a lot
  • Fair use rationales for images
    • However, you may be using too many fair use images (Wikipedia:Fair use):
      • The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). This includes the original in the Image: namespace. Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.
      • The material must contribute significantly to the article
    • Some of them can stay, but others have to go if you are looking for an WP:FA.

I am confused about the fair use policy regarding images. I will try to merge the facts from the trivia section into the main article. Real96 18:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I incorporated the trivia facts into the article. The trivia fact about Eddie Murphy's films was incorporated into his article. I am confused about the copyrighted work, because the licensing was of the film's screenshot. Real96 19:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki-newbie

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

The plot summary as it stands now glosses over a lot. It couldn't really get much tighter than that. --FuriousFreddy 23:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Allusions to factual events" is listy and may be interpreted by some as being a trivia section. If you could convert it from being listy to an actual section, cohesive and tied throughout with an intro, middle and end, then this may help. LuciferMorgan 03:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erikster

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

• I would also recommend, after applying the templates, that you place {{reflist|2}} under Notes to create two columns for the references.

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

[edit] Jurassic Park (film)

I've been cleaning up the article with the help of an excellent book from 1993 (so before it became a monstrous, no pun intended, hit) from the library, despite some pages about the pre-production having been torn out. I hope to gain advice on whether I really should cite pages or simply reference the book multiple times. Please give me some other advice too, because I can easily see this becoming FA. Wiki-newbie 20:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Though I haven't read through it yet, at a cursory glance I can see it relies pretty much on one reference. It would probably never get FA status with just one reference.A mcmurray 22:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• You might have to strengthen the fair use rationales. These need to be (re)written: Image:Jurassic_Park_poster.jpg, Image:Jurassic_Park_screenshot_3.jpg, Image:JurassicParkcast.jpg.--Supernumerary 00:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Not sure where I should leave my comments, but at a brief glance, the first thing I noticed was the "differences from the novel" section. I think it would be good to find information as to why Spielberg changed what he did, or why David Koepp changed it (since he wrote it). Also, I think it would be good to get some other sources, it will help with the neutrality of the article. That's all for this second. Please move my comment to the appropriate place if it happens to be in an incorrect one. Thanks. Bignole 00:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite neutrality, which is a prose issue, but certainly verifiability. Wiki-newbie 18:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erikster

• I would suggest doing something about the T-rex image in the Plot section, as it's been pushed below the Infobox Film template on my screen. This could be handled by placing Production as the lead section, which would put the Plot section far enough below to display images without a problem.

I'm unsure, readers tend to want to know the plot first. Production proceeds to deconstruct it. Wiki-newbie 18:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, "Dinosaurs featured" should be re-titled "Featured dinosaurs". Also, in that section, this sentence doesn't make sense: "A dog was used for when it kills a Gallimimus." In what context -- body, sound?

I think the sentence is fine given the sound information before it.

What does it mean, though? Did they use a dog's carcass for the Gallimimus when the T-rex kills its prey? Is that the implication? It seems like that would be controversial. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Wiki-newbie 20:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The Marketing section obviously needs references, though I'm thinking that the Toys and Merchandise subsection could be written more succinctly. There is a whole paragraph about trading cards that could be summed up in one or two sentences, and the same treatment could possibly be given to other merchandise details.

That section was dumped from the book's article, which lacks references really. I'm thinking of jettisoning it all together. Wiki-newbie 18:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the Reaction section has some weasel wording -- "most well-known films of all time", "first notable film", "many consider it to be a milestone in special effects history", and "film's influence on dinosaurs in popular culture was also significant". There needs to be evidence to back these statements. Being familiar with the film and its popularity at the time, I don't disagree with the statements, but someone who has never heard of Jurassic Park might not understand the claims made. The Reaction section could use an expansion tag to grow up specific reviewers' criticism, positive or negative. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a section I've not really touched since I've been sprucing up the Production information. Wiki-newbie 18:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if your focus is on Production at the moment, I'll offer some criticism. Is there a year or period of time in which Crichton conceived of JP? Was it a recent idea or something he's been wanting to do forever? Also, you should precede Malia Scotch Marmo with "Screenwriter" just to make it immediately clear who she is. Also, you mentioned that she deleted Ian Malcolm, but he's obviously in the film. At what point was he re-added? Another sentence: "...but fortunately for the crew they only lost one day of shooting." Sounds a little too casually written, any way to sound more objective, unless the reference specifically said that? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This is difficult as I've said the book has missing pages, and the DVD is exclusively on the special effects. I have Joseph McBride's book on Spielberg, but I'm unsure considering he supplies a lot of references, to which I'm unsure of citing his book or his sources. Wiki-newbie 20:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hal Raglan

• I've only glanced briefly at the article. Relying on only one reference is a major flaw. A film this recent will have a whole slew of available informational resources. The article as a whole seems a little disorganized; for example, the "Production" section should immediately follow the synopsis. The "Reaction" section is amazingly skimpy; a brief critical response paragraph or two needs to be added, with negative and positive reactions from notable reviewers. And while short, this section is full of unsupported claims that have to be sourced. In fact, the majority of the article is missing citations. I think the article contains interesting details and information, but in my opinion still needs plenty of work to bring it to GA status.-Hal Raglan 18:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been referencing pages of Shay and Duncan's book for verifiability. Note the film is over 13 years old, so internet references will be hard to find. I have another book that is about Spielberg overall, though it does mention stuff on the reaction, which I could use as additional sources. I have also used up the DVD. Wiki-newbie 18:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There should be many, many print references available, which are usually more reliable than internet sources. I know that Cinefantastique and Cinefex devoted issues to this film; both of these magazines usually have outstanding, extremely comprehensive "Making-of" articles. Many other similar magazines (such as Starlog) will also have done cast and crew interviews, with associated production detail information, for this film. It was a huge production, much hyped at the time, so it really should be no problem finding such publications are your local library. If you are unable to adequately source the article at the moment, you might want to hold off on trying to get this to GA or FA status until you do.-Hal Raglan 19:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Are these magazines avaliable in the UK? Wiki-newbie 19:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

These are all U.S. publications, unfortunately, so if they are available in the UK I supposed they'd probably be for purchase, at high prices, at stores that sell "collector's publications". Do libraries there keep copies of such genre magazines? If so, I'm sure Starburst undoubtedly had articles regarding this film. If there were similarly-theme UK magazines being published in 1993 (sorry, I can't think of any titles), they also might be worth taking a look at. Over the weekend, I'll look thru what I have at home and see if I can help with the article's citation problems.-Hal Raglan 20:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If so, it'd be great to have your contributions. Wiki-newbie 20:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LordHarris

Hi Ive had a good look at the article. Some of the sections like production were excellent, well referenced, others not so much. These are some of my thoughts, though I havent made any changes to the article. I would be willing to help, as I have Joseph Mcbrides, Steven Baxters, Ian Freers, Tony Crawleys and warrens bucklands books on Spielberg and his movies. If you want me to look through them for a particular piece of info or a reference, then I'd be more than happy to.

1.) The Plot section was concise but needs to be rewritten in some places. The last paragraph is I think too long and about several different parts of the plot, could be expanded.

The previous one was quite long. I've tried my best to summarise it. Wiki-newbie 18:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

2.) The Changes from the book section really does need more references and some of the statements seem a bit subjective e.g. "in the movie Hammond is a kindly old man". Well I think Spielberg gives him that personna on the outside, but inside he is a ruthless, angry businessman, especially when he realises that JP is no more... Also it states many other minor characters are also different, perhaps a sentance or two on one or two "e.g.s"?

3.) Production section could do with an image, maybe a screenshot from dvd special features?

4.) Marketing section needs a lot of work. I agree with previous statements but am not sure its best to get rid of it all together, as the consumer marketing of JP has had a major impact on modern movie consumerism. I did think that there was too much info on toys and merchandise. Perhaps it could be written more concise, to say two paragraphs and then referenced.

5.)Reaction section, needs expanding and a reference for the criticism. Also with the academy awards, it only states those that it won. Did the film win all of the awards it was nominated for, or were there some it didnt win? Perhaps include nominations if there were any?

6.) The Parodies section needs a short opening sentance to the link for main article e.g. JP has had an impact on popular culture and has been parodied etc.

Overall good beginnings of an FA article! LordHarris 15:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Should I merge the changes from the book with Production? Could come across as original research. See talk page. WikiNew 20:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is GA guys! WikiNew 18:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

• 2007
• 2006