Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Peer review/2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This WikiProject Films page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest.

Contents

[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)
  • 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)

[edit] Batman Begins

I've previously posted this article for a general peer review, but I thought I'd try to see if I can get stronger feedback here at WikiProject Films. I'd like for this article to reach FA status, but I'm fine with achieving GA status along the way. The article is currently being renovated as of a couple of weeks ago, so feel free to compare and see the progress. The to-do list on the film article's talk page highlights what I hope will be accomplished next. For example, I plan to revise the lead paragraphs per WP:LEAD after the body of the article has been written. Please take a look at how the article looks so far -- feedback would be great appreciated! --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 18:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Wow! You have a lot of informationt there! Another thing you could include is a "Critics" sub-section of "Reception" for how it was received by critics. Cbrown1023 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I plan to do that, but how do we aggregate the reviews by critics to present an "overall" review of the film? That's what seems challenging, because there had been a Criticism section before that was full of weasel words. I want to avoid that this time around. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 22:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Just do the best you can. I normally just put some reviews of well-known reviewers (also include their importance like not just by John Doe; but John Doe from the New York Times or just New York Times). I also recommend looking at Category:FA-Class film articles. You may want to look there for ideas on critical reception (such as Casablanca (film)#Critical response, but I suggest more than Casablanca). Cbrown1023 01:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The film article has achieved GA status. Can anyone watching the peer review page please review the article to see how it can be improved further? --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 01:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I saw it reached GA, that was a while ago, wasn't it? I'm sure it can be improved further (it would be naiive to assume it couldn't) but I can't think of anything, the article is great! Cbrown1023 02:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ginger Snaps

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

[edit] Cbrown1023

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

[edit] The Public Enemy

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

  • Expand the lead. Put in the excellent reception for the film, the release info (that it was cut down), the controversy about the grapefruit, perhaps mention that it was based off a book.
  • I added a boiler-plate fair use rationale for the poster. Check to see if the poster hasn't fallen into the public domain though.
    • Thanks, I missed that part. :) Cbrown1023 03:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Was Matt Doyle the other boy leaning against the wall?
    • What? Cbrown1023 23:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • This is what I meant. Here from the first paragraph "before directing the viewer’s attention to two boys growing up with the resultant lure of corruption". You mention that one of the boys is Tom, and then in the second paragraph you start talking about Tom and Matt. Am I supposed to assume that Matt was the other boy leaning against the wall with Tom? Hmmm, on a more careful reading this is indicate, but perhaps you could clarify it by saying "After Tom Powers (James Cagney) and the other boy, Matt Doyle (Edward Woods), grow into young adults".--Supernumerary 00:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Gotcha, fixed it. I didn't write the summary (I haven't seen the movie) so I am not that familiar with it. Cbrown1023 00:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Early on it says that Tom Powers was played by Cagney, but then you say that Cagney's character smashes a grapefruit in his girlfriend's face and you parenthetically note who played her. Later on you say that Tom's girlfriend is played by someone else. Another girlfriend or a mistake?
  • "in which the character of real-life gangster Bugs Moran was cut out" A character based off of Bugs or did Bugs play a part?
  • You need to work Warner brothers in before you say "the studio promised" because I immediately though "Which studio?"
  • Add a closing spoiler tag.
    • But that's not in the usage. (Template talk:Endspoiler#Usage) Cbrown1023 03:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Your ref citing is inconsistent in style (meaning sometimes you use the template, others you don't).
    • The two you are reffering to I didn't even notice, they just appeared their Sunday and I must've missed it on my watchlist. But done. Cbrown1023 03:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Consider adding a picture somewhere. That one site you linked has a plethora, and a photo of Cagney couldn't go amiss.

--Supernumerary 02:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • "The film was avoided by some because of its graphic elements."
What type of people avoided the film? Also, there should be a citation for this - people avoid films for many reasons. LuciferMorgan 02:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I passed a GA for this. Mind, remove the out-of-universe sentence at the end of the Plot section. Wiki-newbie 17:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 23:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Supernumerary

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

[edit] Latter Days

Wanting to take this to FA, but not sure what to do with it now. your thoughts would be good. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Production could be expanded... Cbrown1023 17:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
How? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
If you can't think of anything, then you don't need to expand it. ;) Cbrown1023 15:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Added fair use rationale, and one screenshot. Looks like I can't add another one under the fair use licences. Anything else? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but where are the rationales? I don't see either of them. Cbrown1023 22:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
They're in the <!- brackets, above each image code. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Those say that there is a fair use rationle on the image page but there isn't. See Image:Publicenemyposter.gif for an example of a poster's rationale and Image:Grapefruit-james_cagney-mae_clark21a.jpg for an example of a screen shot's rationale. Cbrown1023 22:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, right, OK. I've added fair use rationales to the actual images now. Is this OK? Do you have any other comments for how to improve the article for FA? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
good job... Cbrown1023 15:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I just did a big copyedit of that page and renamed/moved some sectoins. You might want to check it for more/evaluate my changes, I'll come back with more suggestions in a minute. Cbrown1023 15:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
They seem fine, under a cursory look. Thanks for that, and everything else you've suggested. I think once you're finished I will nominate for FA. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Make sure the Themes section is completely cited or else it will be thought of as OR and will not pass a FA or a GA nomination. Cbrown1023 15:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was concerned about that when I was first told to create a section, but I think it's cited OK now, and the one sentence that isn't is blatantly obvious and so doesn't need citation. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Everything else seems good, I'm pretty sure that you can nominate for FA. After all, a featured article nomination is as much a peer review, as a candidacy. If you don't succeed, they will give you ways on how to improve and you can just renominate it after you do that. Cbrown1023 19:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll nominate now then. Thanks for your help man - I've learnt new stuff from this peer review (like fair use rationales...). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coonskin (film)

I'd like some general feedback on this article. How did I do? What needs to be done? (Ibaranoff24 19:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC))

  • It is best to have a cast list even if it is repeating the previous information. Cbrown1023 22:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It looks good. The plot could use some minor copyediting to make the tone more formal and to eliminate some sentences. Is there anything that could be added to the production and reception section? Was Sharpton the only objector?--Supernumerary 22:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • All the sourced information that I could find on the film is there. (Ibaranoff24 02:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC))
  • All of the images need fair use rationales.--Supernumerary 22:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Pound Puppies and the Legend of Big Paw

As I promised on my list of things to do, I've been spending the last few days of 2006 working on this article about a kids' film that very few have ever had the chance to watch. Without the DVD release of the film, the page would have looked more or less like this, and it would have taken forever to get it all done.

Everything has all been set, but, redlinks aside, a few things, like grammar and verification check-up in some places, would need to be done. To me, it looks so good, I just can't decide whether to put it up for GAC or FAC. What do you film fans make of it? --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 21:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Reword this sentence: "Without protection of the Bone, humans would not understand what the Puppies are saying, and this power would be lost for good." Done.†
  • Red links in the lead need to be taken care of. Either make a stub, or unlink them. All done.‡
  • Check fair use rationales. The poster is missing the "This will not detract from sales, etc" reason. Done.‡
  • "It traces back to the Dark Ages" what does it refer to here? Clarified.†
  • Again many red links in the infobox. Already cleared.‡ Also could some of the producers be dropped from the box? Removed so that only the main ones show up.†
  • Trim the plot. It's a touch over a thousand words, which I think is really unnecessary for a children's film. Other plot issues:
    • "He rings a bell on their desk, asking them to hurry up. Another Pound Puppy, Reflex, hears it and begins smooching three of his friends at random, before McNasty stops him." Necessary? Removed.†
    • "The pup eavesdrops on McNasty's means: to transform his new "pets", and the rest of the Pound, into vicious guard dogs using his Mean Machine, so that he can protect the Bone of Scone." Confusing sentence. Reworded.†
    • "Whopper grabs one half, running off to prove his evidence." In what sense is prove being used here? Reworded.‡
    • Just who is Cooler? Clarified in ¶ #2 of the plot.‡
    • "Colette and Whopper plan to escape from their cage. After doing so, Whopper encounters a big creature stomping in their way, whom he believes is Big Paw. The two of them..." Whopper and the creature is the nearest antecedent, but I'm sure you mean Collete and Whopper. Reworded.‡
    • Okay, I just stopped reading the plot after the above sentence. None of your characters are introduced, so I'm lost in a sea of names. Just who are the Purries? It's never made clear. Clarified in lead section.†
  • If you introduce the characters properly, most of your cast section will be rendered redundant.
  • Cast style is inconsistent. Some voice actors are credited, some are not. Moved the voices to their own section.†
  • I really dislike the bolding, and I'm not alone. See here.
  • What other films were made that "featured established toy properties as their main characters"? A wikilink to the most popular one would be nice. Introduced three examples.†
  • The image placement seems random. What does Jeff and Tammy at the museum have to do with the VHS and DVD releases? Moved into the plot section.†
  • Why would you wikilink "As of 2006"? Delinked.†
  • Try to eliminate the see also section. (I notice that it links to other films like this, which answers one of my questions.) Removed.†
  • This is very nitpicky and I'm not sure if it will be an issue, but Wikipedia worries about linking to sites that are vague on copyright. I'm not sure how that effects the link to the trailer. I'd say don't worry about it, unless it comes up in the good article process.
  • Indicate whether the gross is American or Canadian dollars. Clarified.†
  • I'm not sure if the ratings box is necessary. If there's any remarkable exceptions to the G ratings, mention them but no need for a country by country listing of the same rating. Removed; information is already at IMDb anyway.†
  • I hope this did not come off too harsh. As a last note, I'd say go for Good Article status and then you might ask the reviewer if he thinks you should go for FA. Good luck! --Supernumerary 04:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

†Concerns addressed with this edit --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 01:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
‡Concerns addressed after this edit --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 01:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I've done everything I could for this article during its final stages, fixing a few things in the plot and revising two rushed refs. Tomorrow afternoon, it's off to GAC. We might consider this PR over at last. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 01:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Lord of the Rings (1978 film)

An interesting piece of filmmaking with an even more interesting backstory. Back in August, there wasn't a whole lot in the article, and it contained some statements that were either inaccurate or POV. I've spent some time working on improving it to standards. Any comments? What else needs to be done with this article? (Ibaranoff24 17:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC))

  • Cast section? The infobox is just for a repeat of all the main things in the article, it does not replace any information. Cbrown1023 20:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I created a Cast section, but be sure to shrink the infobox's Starring section. Cbrown1023 20:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • All references should be made using the Template:Cite web. It may not be a big deal, but people may oppose an FA nomination because of it. Cbrown1023 20:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Annamayya

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

I'll upgrade to start, but the real place for requesting an assessment is Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment#Requesting an assessment. :) This is for getting constructive feedback once you reach a B-Class. Cbrown1023 14:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This article's a bit "young" to be here; it doesn't yet have the teeth needed for teething problems. Bring it back when it's five to ten times that length and you'll get much more useful feedback. As for guidance in constructing a movie article, see a fantastic article such as Blade Runner to get you really running. Seegoon 01:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • But mostly check out the style guidelines. Cbrown1023 04:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leaving Las Vegas

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

Why did they choose that particular film gauge? Kaisershatner 15:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, compare with other FA films at WP:FA#Media.
Category:FA-Class film articles would be better. :) Cbrown1023 22:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cbrown1023

  • Won't pass without a fair user rationale for Image:Leaving Las Vegas DVD cover.jpg. Cbrown1023 03:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Make sure the prose flows well (I noticed a slight stick, but that just may be my reading style versus your writing style...). Cbrown1023 03:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I've made some changes to the article; things I didn't state here. Cbrown1023 03:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you.--Crzycheetah 08:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is very short, you could go into more detail on most of the items. Also, remember that the style guidelines are just a basis, it is great if you do more than the guidelines state. Cbrown1023 03:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supernumerary

  • Cite web format for sources.
  • When was it shot?
  • If the character was described in the plot, a description in the cast section is redundant.
    There is more information in the cast section than in the plot. Also, I think that the cast section would look dull without descriptions.--Crzycheetah 08:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    Some of the cast info could be moved to production (like how they researched the parts). Usually the cast section is pretty plain, but I don't think it's a hard and fast rule.--Supernumerary 08:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Formatting issues need to be fixed in the infobox.
    Did Cbrown1023 fix them already? If not, could you point them, please?--Crzycheetah 08:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    Went ahead and made the minor change.--Supernumerary 08:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Avoid weasel words (like arguably).
  • Could do with some copyediting.--Supernumerary 03:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Little Shop of Horrors

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

  • Reception section? Cbrown1023 03:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Disambiguatrion issues? Too many references to "little shop of horrors" without being clear which version (1960, 1982 musical, 1986) is meant? FT2 (Talk | email) 02:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You moved it, so I renamed the section... but we don't need to move this page too... Cbrown1023 04:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see the cite templates implemented, or at least the equivalent information. (Retrieved, work, etc.) The JPStalk to me 13:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supernumerary

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