Talk:Serenity (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Good article Serenity (film) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article has an assessment summary page.
To-do list for Serenity (film): edit · history · watch · refresh

A few thoughts for you guy's FA campaign

  • Expand for a three paragraph lead
  • Expand Production section if able
  • Compress Synopsis section more if able
  • Expand or divide one paragraph sections (minimum of two paragraphs)
  • Cite sources in influences section

Good luck. The Filmaker 21:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Automated

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

  • 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.
  • Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.[1]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[2]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • 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. For example,
    • it has been
    • correctly
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[3]
  • 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. [4]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Priority 1 (top) 
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1

/Archive 2


[edit] Timeline of Firefly / Serenity?

I noticed that the lead of the Serenity article states that it "follows on from the canceled Fox science fiction television series Firefly, taking place about two months after the events of the final episode," and references something which is more of an unsourced note rather than a reference. And yet the plot section states that Simon Tam rescues his sister River from her captors and later find harbor on the spacecraft Serenity as the crew makes a living taking jobs of varying legality in the Outer Rim. Isn't Serenity more of a remake of the basic storyline, with elements that take place during, before, and after the Firefly series? Isn't it misleading for the lead of the article to treat the movie as a sequel to the series, rather than a partial movie remake? --AzureCitizen (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It begins with a short sequence showing Simon's rescue of River (from prior to Firefly's first episode), then jumps to a couple of months after the last episode of Firefly. No part of the film is a remake, or set during the show, but the article could perhaps make that clearer. --Nalvage (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation - it makes more sense now. --AzureCitizen (talk) 08:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dab unnecessary

The dab link is unnecessary because someone would not type in "Serenity (film)" if they were looking for a non-film related use of Serenity. xenocidic (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(I was just adding the following response as Xenocidic posted, but essentially, what he said)
It's my (probably flawed) understanding that you only need disambiguation notes when it's conceivable that a user could have visited this page while trying to get to another article with the same name. However if you search for "Serenity", you get taken to the dab page. You only get to this one by clicking on a direct link to it. Therefore the link isn't necessary, since the function it now serves is not "Perhaps you were looking for some other Serenity" but rather "We know you were looking for this Serenity, but here are some others anyway". I could very easily be wrong about all this. --Nalvage (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess that makes sense. I withdraw my request for discussion. Thanks for explaining. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BDM info removed

I purged the re-addition of the Big Damn Movie info after JClemens added three sources to it. To begin with, at no point in Staite's blog (I thought we tend to avoid those) does she refer to Serenity as the Big Damn Movie. Her reference to BDM is without explanation and seems almost a non-connection of synthesis (ie, knowing that fans call it the BDM and connecting that info with Staite's ambiguous usage of the term) doesn't seem like a clear one. The second source, from Session416.com, seems to be a fan site (I am almost positive that we don't use those at all for citable information). The third source cited (from Weeklystandard.com) doesn't even mention the words BDM or Big Damn Movie. At all. So, here we have three sources, two of which are the poorest of allowable sources and the third doesn't even note the material supposedly being cited. Without proper citation from reputable, reliable sources, the statements cannot remain. We are not a fan service - we are an encyclopedia. - - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

See my reply, and feel free to respond, on my talk page. Jclemens (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)