Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Peer review/2008

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.
WikiProject Films
General information ( v • d • e )
Main project page + talk
 → Discussion archives
Style guidelines talk
Announcements and open tasks talk
 → Articles needing attention talk
 → Nominations for deletion talk
 → New articles talk
 → Requests talk
 → Stubs talk
Resources
Showcase
Film Portal talk
Fiction noticeboard talk

Contents

[edit] American Graffiti

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of the failed Feature Article Nomination. The other editors stated that the prose was fairly bad and that I had an egotistical attitude towards other editors. Any suggestions would be nice.

Thanks, Wildroot (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/American Graffiti/archive1.

[edit] U2 3D

I have worked on this article from the very beginning and feel that it may be eligible for good article status. My goal is to eventually make this into a featured article someday. I've made sure that every fact in the article is properly cited, and the only expansions really needed right now are to the synopsis section (I have no idea what to do with it) and the reception section. Any input I can get would be really appreciated. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dream, very minor issues, two redlinks: "3ality Digital" could be eliminated, some common words are wikilinked and overlinking is unnecessary. As for the style, writing and comprehensiveness, it stands up well as a GA candidate. As for your concerns, the background note on U-2 and Bono could come from contemporary book/print sources, while it would be useful to provide critical reaction as well as general reception notes instead of just quoting the grosses. There must be some critics' reviews that can bolster this section. As for a synopsis, there really isn't one other than a "set list" but a description of the concert could be developed. A great start but some more work would benefit the overall evaluation. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Dirty Dancing

Seeking to take the article about this 1987 film to Featured status. It's already been through one WikiProject Peer Review in June 2007, and is at Good Article status, but an FA nomination a month ago did not succeed. I've done some more cleanup since then, and am seeking another Peer Review before trying again for FA. Thanks, Elonka 12:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The story details the moment of time that a teenaged girl crosses over into womanhood both physically and emotionally - have a think about this bolded bit and see if it reads any less with it out. Can definitely lose the 'both', the adjectives don't really add much but make it more cumbersome to read.
    • Hmm, will think about it. It's sort of one of the key elements of the story, and as I recall some of the crew described it this way, but I'll think if there's a different way to word it. --Elonka 07:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As she further befriends the staff, - I find this clunky but an alternatve is yet to spring to mind...
    • Reworked. --Elonka 07:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • pursues a clandestine affair anyway. - I haven't actually seen the film. If they are already in some form of relationship I'd use continues rather than pursues here.
    • Fixed. --Elonka 07:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Homework - make a stub for It's My Turn the movie as this links to the song.
    • The film was already listed in the song stub. I reworked the stub so that it's more clear that it covers both. --Elonka 07:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

OK - prosewise it isn't too bad. I picked up a few things an no doubt others will pick up more. WRT comprehensiveness, it looks pretty good, I wonder if there isn't some other scholarly critique which discusses its success and/or place in culture in a bit more detail. It would be fantastic to add something if there was something about. The last section Other versions' is a bit stubby, a few more words on each item may make it run a bit better. Anyway, not too far away. Must see this one day I guess....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your time! In terms of a scholarly work, there's this, I'll see what I can work in:
Wiams, William (2004-11-20). Baby in the Underworld: Myth and Tragic Vision in Dirty Dancing (pdf). Retrieved on 2008-04-06.
--Elonka 07:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Brilliant find. Have a read and see what you can add. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs)
Alright, I've grokked it and have added a new section, Dirty Dancing#Plot analysis, let me know what you think? --Elonka 00:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Matthewedwards (talk · contribs)
  • "dirty dancing" links to mambo, a dab page. Better if it were linked to mambo (dance)
    • Good catch! Fixed. --Elonka 07:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "dirty dancing" in Plot, then "Dirty Dancing" in Pre-production (the act, not the movie)
    • The second one is capitalized because it refers to the title of the competitions, but I agree it could go either way. --Elonka 07:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "gave the film a major sendoff" huh?
    • The sources describe the Times review as a major one, a half-page article with a major headline, as opposed to a minor review. I believe that one of the sources (video documentary) also described it as "major sendoff" but I'd have to doublecheck. Could you elaborate on your concern? --Elonka 07:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      • The word "sendoff". A sendoff to me is kind of like a big ol' party before someone leaves for a new city/job/life. If it was a review, I'd "say review". -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Alright, changed to "major review". --Elonka 00:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "with viewers rating the film highly as "would watch this again."" Should be referenced
    • It is, at the end of the next sentence. This came from the 20th anniversary DVD. --Elonka 07:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No mention of whether the movie actually was released to video after only a weekend of theatrical release, and if it was given a longer theatrical release, no explaination of why
    • The sources are not specific, but the implication is that it stayed in theaters. --Elonka 07:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "also became a fan-favorite that is often listed in top 10 "most watched" lists." WP:OR
    • Reworked the sentence and added a source. --Elonka 07:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Other tragedies followed." Vestron going bankrupt maybe unfortunate, but not a tragedy.
    • Changed to "Some of the cast and crew died in tragic ways within the next few years." --Elonka 07:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That's all from me. Any comments, questions, or if you need a re-review or follow-up, let me know. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!  :) --Elonka 07:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Review by User:Bzuk

  • Given the iconic nature of the film, textual sources should be available and included as a bibliography
    • I have provided the ones that I know about. --Elonka 15:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • All reference citations should have the following format: Author (last, first name), Title, Place of Publishing (if required): Publisher, date (retrieval date). An example is:
    Judith Newmark. "How a Disney made-for-TV movie suddenly became ... A 'high school' craze", 'St. Louis Post Dispatch', 2007-01-21. should appear as: *:Newmark, Judith. "How a Disney made-for-TV movie suddenly became... A 'high school' craze." St. Louis Post Dispatch, January 21, 2007. Retrieved: April 13, 2008.
    • Fixed. --Elonka 15:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is there an ISO dating in the references?
    • I'm not understanding this one, please be more specific? --Elonka 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no consistency in retrieval dates used for citations, some have them, some don't
    • The ones that are online have retrieval dates. --Elonka 15:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Dirty Dancing: Live in Concert" should be in italics as a title of a work
    • Fixed. --Elonka 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no cast list or cast section
    • This is one of those things I've been getting conflicting advice about. Some people like cast lists, others don't. I opted to remove it entirely --Elonka 15:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "seventeen-year-old" is normally written out as "17-year old"
    • Fixed. --Elonka 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "wrapped up" is normally "wrapped" in film lingo
    • Fixed. --Elonka 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Many filmgoers, after seeing the film once, went right back into the theater to watch it a second time." is inconsistent, did you mean they immediately went back to catch the next showing? probably not. Suggestion: "Many filmgoers, after seeing the film once, went back to watch it a second time." (based on the premise that you didn't literally mean that they watched the film twice in succession)
    • The first meaning is correct. They left the theater, turned around, bought another ticket and went right back in. --Elonka 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "So Vestron promoted the film themselves, and it premiered on August 16, 1987." could be more effectively written as "Consequently Vestron promoted the film themselves; premiering Dirty Dancing on August 16, 1987." These two thoughts/main ideas could also be two separate sentences as the promotion is not necessarily tied to its premiere.
    • Tweaked. --Elonka 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "off the script." usually written "off script"
    • Fixed. --Elonka 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Other casting choices were Broadway actor Jerry Orbach as Dr. Jake Houseman, Baby's father; and Jane Brucker as Lisa Houseman, Baby's older sister." could be written as "Other casting choices were Broadway actor Jerry Orbach as Dr. Jake Houseman, Baby's father and Jane Brucker as Lisa Houseman, Baby's older sister." (no need for a semi-colon)
    • Hmm, the "Baby's father and Jane Brucker" sounds odd to me without punctuation to separate the thoughts. --Elonka 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Baby then proceeds through tests and trials (dancing lessons, Penny's abortion, the performance at the Sheldrake) to achieve personal growth, "knowledge acquired through personal experience", for which she is rewarded, by sexual union with Johnny." (sentence too long, consider two sentences)
    • Adjusted. --Elonka 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

After saying all that, the article is a comprehensive, well-written and eminently interesting article. FWiW, all my comments hinge on minor aspects of the writing and referencing. 15:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! With all the comments here, the article is much stronger as a result. I look forward to submitting it for FA again soon, please let me know if you have any other suggestions. --Elonka 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The prose is much better than in the last FAC. This shows especially in the plot section. I don't see any major obstacles for a successful future FAC, but I can still suggest a few minor tweaks. Ignore them where you think they are bad, in which case you don't have to explain yourself. I like working in batches, so the following isn't everything; if this peer review closes earlier than I can complete my review, I'll give you my notes in other ways. This review includes everything up until (including) the "Pre-production" section

  • "Baby brings her father, who is a doctor," - it is mentioned earlier that her father is "the personal physician of the resort owner Max Kellerman". Maybe move his job description there, e.g. "Baby's father, Dr. Jake Houseman (Jerry Orbach), is the personal physician of the resort owner Max Kellerman (Jack Weston)."
  • The "Plot analysis" section should say who made this analysis. If available, a second analysis source wouldn't hurt.
  • "The hero, Baby, is an innocent who receives" - an innocent what?
  • direct quotes like "knowledge acquired through personal experience" need a reference right behind the quotation marks, even though this duplicates unnecessary refs
  • "Dirty Dancing is in large part based on..." -> "A large part of Dirty Dancing is based on..."
  • "For a location for the film, they did not find anything suitable in the Catskills, so they decided..." -> "As the producers did not find a suitable filming location in the Catskills, they decided..."
  • "However, the two of them met, worked things out, ..." -> "However, the two of them worked things out in a meeting, ..."
  • "Bergstein initially wanted him to play the part of the social director, but then later asked him to play the part of the magician." - contains the phrase "to play the part of" twice
  • "The part of Baby's mother was originally given to..." - this is a run-on sentence. Consider splitting after "Bishop" and combine the resulting second sentence with the following sentence

– sgeureka t•c 13:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(continued) As was suggested, I made some quick improvement attemps myself, which should be doublechecked for grammar (just in case). I also have some more notes (below) where I rather not touch the article myself at the moment.

  • "When it came time to select actual music for the film,..." sounds grammatically awkward to my non-native ears, but I may be wrong. Shouldn't it be "When it became time" or "When the time came to"?
  • "The film's huge success had the paradoxical effect of backfiring on some of the participants." - I don't really see what and how something "backfired", just a little bad luck that is not necessarily related to DD.
  • In the "Legacy" section, the facts about Swayze's future career appear disjointed, at least as far as it comes to their connection to the film. How was he parodied? Did he get the other roles because of the success of DD? (probably, but that needs to be pointed out). The prose in this section also seems not as fluent as elsewhere, IMO, and I can help out once the Swayze sentences are fixed.
  • "Johnny Castle's line "Nobody puts Baby in a corner" has been used in song lyrics," - source?
  • The last two sentences of the first paragraph in "Stage version" mix Simple Present and Simple Past in an awkward way.

– sgeureka t•c 20:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Just some quick thoughts. Much better than before.

(1) The coming of age aspect should reference Bildungsroman as a matter of simple professionalism, given this is the generally accepted academic term (descriptor), as monomyth is more of a Campbellism (i.e. analytic).

(2) Still marred by overly trivial descriptions especially in production and filming sections.

(3) prose: still weak & really needs some work for FA:

Ok, so instead of just shooting my mouth off, here's what I mean in this regard: Consider this paragraph (selected randomly):

Director Ardolino was adamant that they choose dancers who could also act, as he did not want to use the "stand-in" method that had been used with the 1983 Flashdance. For the female lead of Frances "Baby" Houseman, Bergstein chose the 26-year-old Jennifer Grey, daughter of the Oscar-winning actor and dancer Joel Grey of the 1972 film Cabaret. They then sought a male lead, initially considering 20-year-old Billy Zane, who had the visual look desired, but initial dancing tests when he was partnered with Grey did not meet expectations. The next choice was 34-year-old Patrick Swayze, who had been noticed for his roles in The Outsiders and Red Dawn, in which he had co-starred with Grey. Swayze was a seasoned dancer, with experience from the Joffrey Ballet. The producers liked him, but Swayze's agent was against the idea. However, Swayze read the script, liked the multi-leveled character of Johnny, and took the part anyway. Grey was not happy about the choice, as she and Swayze had had difficulty getting along on Red Dawn. However, the two of them met, worked things out, and when they did their dancing screen test, the chemistry between them was obvious. Bergstein described it as "breathtaking".[9]

I would rewrite this as:

Director Ardolino, after his experience using stand-ins with Flashdance in 1983, was adamant actors be chosen who could dance. This requirement disqualified 20-year old Billy Zane, who otherwise had the desired "look." Producers then considered 34-year old Patrick Swayze, a seasoned dancer after his lengthy experience with the Joffrey Ballet. Against the advice of his agent, Swayze liked the character and took the role. Although he and Jennifer Grey had previously clashed on the set of Red Dawn, they met and resolved their differences. By the time they took their screen test, the chemistry between them was "breathtaking" according to Bergstein.[9]

(I removed completely the sentence about Jennifer Grey, which is redundant wrt her starring in the film, says nothing about her dancing and is a pointless non-sequitur in terms of the minibio. If you have something about her ability to dance, place it here. Otherwise, kill it.)

Pretty much every paragraph needs to be tightened up like that; crisper prose, a more judicious eye for the relevant detail and less unnecessary guff that distracts from the main points.

(4) Finally, last time I objected to unsourced claims about the legacy, but I think that is one of the most interesting things about this (chick)flick ;). Is there no material that can be used to flesh out its legacy? After reining in the prose and trivia of the various production sections, there should be plenty of space. As it stands, we have a sort of laundry list of stuff; since this has been the subject of academic treatment, however, it suggests there may be something more substantive to say about it.

Ok, sorry if I am being too direct, but there's a strong potential here. Just needs some more work. Damn now I have time of my life stuck in my head. Damn you Dirty Dancing! Eusebeus (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mulholland Drive (film)

I saw this movie about 2 weeks ago or so and it intoxicated me. So I did my best to read everything I could and added to the article accordingly. I would like to know its potential for FA, since I've not written a film article to this extent before. I would like to know what to add, remove, alter, clean up, and clarify. Your assistance is appreciated, and thank you for reading the article. --Moni3 (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Very well written, with extensive referencing, and an attempt to establish a neutral voice being successful. My minor concerns remain that there is an inconsistency in dating and citation formats. A final assessment may have to wait since I am recusing myself from a full review. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC).
Noted about inconsistencies in formatting citations. I'm going to have it go through LOCE for punctuation and prose, and ask someone to assist with going over references before FAC. I appreciate your time and input, Bzuk. --Moni3 (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Goodfellas

I've cleaned up this article considerably and aside from beefing up the Lead paragraph, would like any comments or suggestions towards promoting this article to GA status. Thanks! --J.D. (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Bzuk The article is generally well-written, comprehensive and interesting to the reader. The following refer to minor issues:

  • Is there any textual (authoritative) sources that can be included in a bibliography?
  • There is some inconsistency in the use of both ISO and m-d-y formats
  • The very large soundtrack sections may be best placed in a sub-article

For now... Bzuk (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Eyes Without a Face

I wrote this article from a small stub. I've been working on this article in small bursts between January and March of this year. I used some other films that have been FA'd in the past to get it up to snuff for hopefully maybe a GA-status? Here's hoping. If anyone wants to help clean any or all of it up for that go right ahead! Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Review by User:Bzuk

  • Are there textual sources available to be included as a bibliography?
  • All reference citations should have the following format: Author (last, first name), Title, Place of Publishing (if required): Publisher, date (retrieval date).

I will make some revisions to the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Bull Durham

I've put a lot of work into this article and cleaned up considerably. I would greatly appreciate any comments or suggestions that would help in promoting it up to GA status. Thanks!--J.D. (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think some of the information about who the characters are based on could be moved to the cast section. It's kind of hard to read in the intro paragraph about the plot. Be careful about quoting the Internet Movie Database on some parts of the film as that's not usually considered a viable source as it's info is usually user submitted from anonymous sources. It's looking really good so far though! Perhaps expand the cast section as well? Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:Bzuk Generally well-written and interesting account. I would address only one minor concern and that is inconsistencies in using ISO and m-d-y formats. More to come later. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

I'm nominating this article for a peer review because all three POTC films are Good Articles, and since Dead Man's Chest is probably the most developed one, it would be nice to know what could be improved before nominating it for the FA. Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 23:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dor (film)

This article recently achieved a GA status without any objections whatsoever. I've thoroughly developed the article in its comprehensiveness and breadth. I wish to bring it up further on quality and to achieve this, I request reviewers to please comment on what areas to focus upon. Thanks for your time. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sweet Smell of Success

This is a famous, often quoted, highly regarded film that I've been working on in the hopes of bumping it up to GA status. Any comments and/or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. --J.D. (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:Bzuk Since the film in question is a landmark film, are there any textual references that can be added to the sources used? Otherwise, as in J.D.'s other work, a finely written piece, that sets a neutral tone and has adequate if not overwhelming reference sources. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

[edit] You Only Live Twice (film)

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's a Good Article.

Thanks, Ultra! 08:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Why year in parentheses after the title?
  • Four paras in lead probably one too many for this length...
  • $111M - why M and which $?
  • British English please!
  • Image captions are all fragments so remove full stops.
  • Expand Cast section to tell us more about the characters.
  • Numbers below 10 are written out in full.
  • " The 45 meter (120′)" - use the {{convert}} template.
  • Merge paras in the Fliming section, a few too short paras for me.
  • "kamikaze device " - link kamikaze.

Enough from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Bzuk (talk · contribs)
  • Second paragraph of the lead is unnecessary as it is part of the plot sysnopsis
  • Third paragraph of lead has "and has been parodied greatly" which requires a word choice change, suggestion: "and has been greatly parodied" or "and has often been parodied" or "and has been the subject of numerous parodies."
  • Plot can be pruned as it tends to relate scene-by-scene which is excessive
  • Spelling derivation: "make-up" often written as "makeup"
  • Dates written in ISO format as well as m-d-Year, choose one, suggestion: use the popular format of m-d-y throughout since it was already established in the article first.
  • Minor variances in references; could use a bibliography listing as a number of citations are page only and the full bibliographical notation can be used.

...for now, Bzuk (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC).

[edit] The Living Daylights

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's a Good Article.

Thanks, Ultra! 08:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Link " MI6 " in the lead.
  • "of an actual Ian Fleming" need of "actual" here?
  • Editing by in the infobox is missing.
  • Bond and Milovy image caption is fragment so remove full stop. Same with the other screengrabs.
  • Expand characters, particularly for the non-regulars.
  • Punctuation in characters section needs work. Full stops...
  • "Originally the film was proposed to be a prequell in the series. But the idea was dropped. SMERSH's motto "Smiert Spionon" From the short story formed the storyline.[2]" - typos, short sentences, sort this out...
  • Casting section has a number of short paragraphs, flow these together to improve the prose.
  • "The film was shot at the Pinewood Studios at its 007 Stage in UK, as well as Weissensee in Austria. The pre-title sequence was filmed on the Rock of Gibraltar. Other locations included Germany, the United States, and Italy. The desert scenes were done in Morocco. The conclusion of the film included the Schönbrunn Palace, Vienna and Elveden Hall, Suffolk." citations needed. Same for last para of Filming, it's entirely uncited.
  • "The Living Daylights was the final Bond film to be scored by composer John Barry. The soundtrack is notable for its introduction of sequenced electronic rhythm tracks overdubbed with the orchestra - at the time, a relatively new innovation." no citations.
  • Last para of Music is uncited.
  • Five external links seems excessive.

That's it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Bzuk (talk · contribs)
  • Use of numbers, zero to nine written out as words, 10 and up as numerals
  • Delete use of Harvard comma throughout in the use of listing details (one, two and three rather than one, two, and three)
  • Does casting belong with cast section or production, this is unclear
  • All the endnotes are written incorrectly as to dates (use of ISO dating rather than m-d-y already established, all author notes should appear last name, first and middle name and period)

That's enough changes for now but work is needed. Bzuk (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Die Another Day

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's a Good Article. Thanks, Ultra! 08:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Explain CGI before abbreviating it.
  • Robert Wade in infobox is a dab.
  • Explain NSA before abbreviating it. Same with HALO and WMD.
  • British English should be used so pressurisation not pressurization etc...
  • Surfing image caption is a fragment so no need for a full stop.
  • "The cut happened as requested," - was made?
  • "...was voted 9th out of 22 and was voted..." reads clumsily.
  • Three citations in the References to other films section is insufficient.
  • The whole of "advertising campaign" section needs help with spelling, WP:HEAD, WP:CITE etc..
  • Link Royal Albert Hall.
  • "On the very first day" spot the redundant word.
  • References should use {{cite web}} and not be raw urls.

That should help a bit on the way to something like FAC... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


Comments from Bzuk (talk · contribs)

Interesting article, generally well written but major issues with referencing formats, not only use of bare urls, lack of author notes, mix of dating styles. Contact me for assistance. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC).

[edit] The World Is Not Enough

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's a Good Article.

Thanks, Ultra! 08:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

A few pointers - it's a good starting point for FA though...

  • Check external links, a least one dead one when I checked this.
  • "(released in 1999)" no need for the parentheses.
  • Don Black in the infobox points at a dab page.
  • The Cast section could be expanded a bit to talk more about the characters.
  • "James Bond(007):" space missing, and this sentence needs a full stop.
  • Moneypenny and R's description need full stops.
  • Image:Renard Elektra.png does not have a fair use rationale for use in this article.
  • Sub image caption is a fragment so doesn't need full stop.
  • "rumored" - okay, since this is a British film about a British secret agent I would advocate the use of British English.
  • "The actual working title, as with all 007 movies was Bond 19 as it is always "Bond" followed by which number this Bond movie is." working title explanation ought to be introduced earlier and this sentence is clumsy.
  • Try not to wedge text between images per WP:MOS#Images.
  • Adaptations has only one references but makes a number of claims.

That's it for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Bzuk (talk · contribs)
  • the term "(released in 1999)" should not be in parenthesis, usually only the date; not even sure why release date is mentioned, that is understood
  • Phrase "highest grossing James Bond film at that time" need a new word choice, "to date" suggested.
  • Plot should identify all characters by actor as in James Bond (Pierce Brosnan)
  • Referencing variances throughout with inconsistency in dates, names
  • The Rough Guide to James Bond, Death Rays, Jet Packs, Stunts & Supercars: The Fantastic Physics of Film's Most Celebrated Secret Agent and Film Fatales: Women in Espionage Films and Television, 1962-1973 should all appear as part of a bibliography not in the endnotes

That's it for now, generally well-written but minor revisions are required. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC).

[edit] The High and the Mighty (film)

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a comprehensive and thoroughly researched film article that is written in a neutral but encyclopedia manner.


Thanks, Bzuk (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC).

SGGH I suggest:

  • move citation one to the end of the sentence.
  • I would put the plot summary in the lead before the part about John Wayne and the oscars, which I would have at the end of the lead.
  • The image caption, (from a screenshot) is not, I don't think, necessary
  • "souls on board" I can't find a reason for this phrase other than it being a quote from something, couldn't it just be passengers? ahh I see now, but perhaps explain that at the first mention of "souls on board"
  • Passengers needs a colon after it
  • With each character name in bold, and each actors name not wikilinked, and with the text coming out straight after, it can be difficult in casual reading to pick out the actors names, perhaps highlight them some way.
  • From cite 4 in the plot section until the cast section there are no citations, you may have left something uncited that needs to be.
  • Good use of images
  • "Casting problems plagued the production" is there a cite for this or is it in the [7] citing the following sentence.
  • Bob Cummings, the "Bob" doesnt need the "" I don't think
  • risky "theme" concept project, again with the "" this is a bit difficult to understand, why the ""?

The remainder seems fine, good stuff. Hope you find these comments helpful. SGGH speak! 12:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paper Dolls (film)

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to submit this article for GA, and possibly FA.

Thanks, Starczamora (talk) 09:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No responses yet, eh? Well, a couple quick suggestions... first, you'll want to expand the lead as per WP:LEAD to around three paragraphs. I'd also suggest renaming the "Plot" section. It makes me question whether this is really a documentary or not. Also, look at your in-line citations. There are a couple sentences that are followed with two cites (I call it "cite-cruft") where it's not needed. Doubling citations really should only be for potentially controversial information - a DVD release date doesn't seem controversial to me. I'd also recommend you ask for a specific peer review from Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies. Best of luck! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: (after edit conflict) Overall interesting and well done - I think it is pretty close to GA status. Some suggestions:

  • Expand the lead per WP:LEAD, for example the Reception section is not mentioned here at all, but the lead should summarize the article.
  • A copyedit is needed.
    • One example He urges her to learn Hebrew by reciting a poem written by Yehuda Amichai, while he basks in Sally's warmth and wit.[7] Since he (Chaim) has lost his voice, he can not be reciting it, but the sentence as written is unlcear as to who is reciting (Sally).
    • There are other places that need some polish / grammar corrections. In contrast, when the Paper Dolls were arranged for an audition at TLV—the largest nightclub in Tel Aviv—the booker instead relegated them as geishas who bow by the entrance and were described as "unprofessional" and "fit only for a bus stop".[9][10] This is a run-on sentence and not grammatical. Perhaps In contrast, after the Paper Dolls were hired at TLV—the largest nightclub in Tel Aviv—instead of performing on stage, the booker relegated them to a role as geishas. They would bow by the entrance and were described as "unprofessional" and "fit only for a bus stop".[9][10]
  • I have not seen the film so I do not know if the "plot" is complete, but it seems as if the description of waht happens in the film could be expanded.
  • Participants section - I would identify each of these people and explain their role in the film. Also explain why some died during filming.
  • Production - can more said on the 6 hour tv production this was made from? Was it also called Paper Dolls?
  • Relesases and Reception seem well done - perhaps identify the three Paper Dolls in the image (wearing newspaper dresses)
  • references 2 and 5 do not have complete information (all internet refs should have date accessed, publisher, author if known and title).

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homerun (film)

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have finished writing this article and will soon take it to GAN. Any and all feedback on how I can improve the article is appreciated.

Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dihydrogen Monoxide

  • "shares the same storyline" - it can't be identical. Perhaps "a similar storyline"?
Addressed during our rewrite of the lead. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "This comedy emphasises" - you should specifically state what the genres are, before into plot detail, IMO
Addressed, see above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Redlink: is Singapore-Malaysia relations likely to be created?
To be honest, I am surprised that this article does not exist. One day, I might write an article about all our disputes with our northern neighbours. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
For now, can it redirect to somewhere on Singapore or Malaysia? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The link now points to Foreign relations of Singapore#Malaysia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Released in cinemas on 7 August 2003" - wlink dates
All dates wikilinked. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Neo and his wife were moved to" - you might want to name him in full here for those who skip the lead
Changed by someone else. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Newspaper titles in refs need to be in italics
All newspaper titles in references italicised --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "on a budget of S$1.5 million." - wlink currency
All currencies wikilinked. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Having earned $110 300 from sneak previews" - again, and later in sentence
Done, see above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "The child actors' school commitments made the planning of reshoots difficult" - no need for the redlink here
Wikilink removed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "On 7 August 2003," - wlink date again
Done, see above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "released Homerun on 37 screens" - what does on 37 screens mean?
Changed "screens" to "theatres". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "In addition, one of Kiat Kun's" - in addition not necessary
"In addition" removed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "over the right to draw water from the kampung well.[1][13][14][15]" - do you need 4 refs for this?
In my opinion, important facts, such as this, and the Golden Horse victory, should have multiple references. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, but four isn't necessary. You don't need to have four reliable sources reporting one fact; that's just silly. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed one of the references, as it was over-used and only mentioned that fact in one sentence. The other references went into greater detail. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "comparing Singapore’s disclosure of letters between the two countries to "revealing letters sent to one's girlfriend"" - you don't need to quote this, it's the same as the last quote
Haemo says you're wrong. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "On 12 September 2007" - date (WP:DATE)
Done, see above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Malaysian censors announced their decision to ban the screening of Homerun in Malaysia,[14][15][16] citing scenes which "are easily interpreted by some Malaysian audiences’ [sic] as containing political elements related to current issues".[15] Raintree filed an appeal,[14][15][16] " - do you need the 3 cites for both sentences?
See above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Best New Performer award with Wang Baoqiang of Blind Shaft.[24][25][26]" - does this need 3 refs?
See above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

An interesting read. Hope to see a FAC in the not-too-distant future. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough review. I have addressed some of your concerns and will address the rest (and Delldot's) later. Now I have to rush to my Maths lecture. Junior college life is hectic! Unfortunately, I doubt you'll see an FAC in the not-too-distant future. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no hurry; good luck! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] delldot

Very nicely done. I'll be incredibly picky here and you can ignore anything that's off base.

  • Not sure whether award-winning needs a hyphen.
I believe it does, but will ask my copy-editors. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Haemo says having the hyphen and not having the hyphen are both acceptable. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "shares the same" is redundant.
Addressed during our rewrite of the lead (see below). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No need to link to common words like shoe, only material related to the content of the article or something someone might need to look up, like a rare word or concept.
The shoes are a key element of the plot. Though, if you insist, I can remove the wikilinks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
That does not look like an Easter egg link, as the "Seperation" section of the Singapore in Malaysia article is about (you guessed it) Singapore's seperation from Malaysia. Perhaps I should modify the link to go directly to the "Seperation" section, instead of the top of the article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Singapore-Malaysia relations is a redlink. Is there an article you could link to? If not, maybe this could be your chance to use Singapore in Malaysia.
Dihydrogen Monoxide also mentioned this in his review above; see my response to his comment. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Link changed, see my response to Dihydrogen Monoxide. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Cinema is a dab link, so maybe check the article for others. Again, I don't know if you need to link common words like this, though this one is more related.
Done. The link now points to cinema (place). I checked the rest of the article for links to disambiguation pages, but did not find any. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Every day, the cast woke up early to reach the filming location, exhausting themselves with the long commute and the many running scenes they had to shoot.[7] The child actors' school commitments made the planning of reshoots difficult;[1] moreover, the production team decided to delay post-production work in Thailand due to the SARS outbreak." This is a very long sentence, and I don't know if the two thoughts are closely related enough for a semicolon. I'd use a full stop. Plus, that way you can avoid pesky mid-sentence refs. Also, I think moreover is one of those redundant words list at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Eliminating redundancy (also, also is another one :-P).
Linking words may be redundant, but they are sometimes needed to make the sentences flow better. How about: "Due to the SARS outbreak, the production team decided to delay post-production work in Thailand. The child actors' school commitments also made the planning of reshoots difficult." --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The title of the movie should be italicized.
It was in all but two instances. Both unitalicised instances of "Homerun" have now been italicised. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Link full dates, e.g. 7 August 2003 -> 7 August 2003. But don't link just years by themselves, except when it's relevant to the article (which is rare).
Done. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "then a record for a Singaporean film" maybe "at the time" instead of "then".
Changed per your suggestion. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Kiat Kun and his friends strike a bargain with Beng Soon to play on the team using the other boys' football shoes, in exchange for helping the other boys cheat on their homework." This sentence is a little confusing, since it's not clear who the "other boys" are in the two cases, but I don't know how you'd fix it.
In that sentence, the "other boys" refer to Beng Soon and his friends. In the last sentence of that paragraph, the "other boys" refer to Kiat Kun and his friends. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Changed one instance of "the other boys'" to "their". Hopefully that should make it clearer who we are referring to. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "...kick Kiat Kun and his friends off the team." this sounds too informal. "For good" and "biggest" are others.
Changed "kick...off" to "remove...from", "the agreement is eventually terminated for good" to "they eventually give up on reaching an agreement" and "the biggest" to "achieving the most successful". Are all of these fine? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Despite the bad blood between himself and Kiat Kun, Beng Soon decides to arrange a new deal with Kiat Kun, but under more onerous terms. Kiat Kun's initial joy turns to dismay when he realises that the shoes are too large." This is a little confusing, because the first sentence doesn't mention shoes. I guess the reader can infer that the new deal's probably also going to involve shoes, but you might want to specify. If it's basically the same thing, you could say "...renew the deal, but under more onerous terms."
Done. Changed to "renew the deal, but under more onerous terms". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This concern is now outdated, as Haemo and I have rewritten the Plot section (see below). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "the rich boy feels slighted and threatens to throw the shoes away in a fit of pique." I think you could do away with "in a fit of pique", since the earlier part of the sentence made it clear how he felt.
I removed "in a fit of pique" per your suggestion. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "This causes the boys to get into an argument..." You should avoid starting sentences with this if possible, since it's not always going to be clear what this refers to.
Changed to "As a result, the boys get into an argument..." Is this grammatically correct? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "...but trips on a stone and finishes first, with Beng Soon ending in third place..." According to this, "Using 'with' as an additive link leads to wordy and awkward prose." He recommends using a semicolon instead.
Changed the comma to a semi-colon and "with Beng Soon ending in third place" to "Beng Soon ends the race in third place". Is this fine? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Unfortunately, he was sick..." Unfortunately sounds like the article is offering commentary, and I don't see how it adds anything. But might work. Also, my instinct would be to go for "he had been sick" rather than "he was", but you might want to see how FA articles on movies do it.
I already started two sentences in the Plot section with "However" and used the word "but" five times in that section. Hence I used "Unfortunately" to avoid repeating words. Would you like to suggest a better word or phrase? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Scartol changed it to "Because he was sick..." --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "While Kiat Kun is running, Mrs Chew goes into labour, leading Seow Fang to run across across a long path littered with broken glass to find a midwife." maybe use forcing instead of leading here?
Changed per your suggestion. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Finally, Mrs Chew gives birth to a healthy little baby boy and Beng Soon gives Kiat Kun and Seow Fang new pairs of shoes before going to study in England." This last sentence is such a departure from the rest of the plot that I'd almost say to have it as a separate paragraph. On the other hand, short and one sentence paragraphs are discouraged unless you're really emphasizing something. Reading this sentence, I was like, "Whaa? I thought Beng Soon had just thrown away the pair of shoes he'd won out of spite. Why the change of heart?" This might just be a movie thing though. In other news, I don't think the word "little" is necessary here, unless there's something notable about his size. Plus, little is a little informal.
Good point. I will see how I can tweak the sentence. By the way, I removed the word "little" per your suggestion. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You could probably cut the plot section down a little or flesh the other sections out.
Haemo and I have rewritten parts of the Plot section; some of your concerns were also addressed during that rewrite. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The cast section is a little sparse. Could it be integrated into another section? Isn't all this information already in the plot section?
The mentions of the actors in the Plot section are not referenced, while the Cast section contains a reference. I would make a longer and more comprehensive Cast section if I could find a reference for it (other than IMDB, of course). I Not Stupid achieved GA status despite having a Cast list similar to that in Homerun (film). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Singapore's situation in 1965 to that of 2003" sounds awkward because of the in/of use.
  • "as well as the threat of terrorism in the new millenium." I don't get this. How do the riots highlight that?
To be honest, I am not completely sure. Perhaps the chaos and social unrest caused by the riots parellel those caused by terrorism. That tidbit is taken from a quote by executive producer Daniel Yun, which was published in my reference, a newspaper article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "the deal Beng Soon reneged on" ends in a preposition. Sorry, just being picky here.
  • Some of the info under Political commentary isn't really commentary, it's just about stuff that's happening at the time. Maybe you could rename the section to something like "Political context", or "Political context and commentary" or something. I don't know whether it's a good idea or not, maybe discuss it on the talk page.
That section used to be named "Political satire"; I remamed it to "Political commentary" as not all the commentary was satirical. Most of the allusions are not "context". Are you suggesting I change the name to the overly long "Political context, commentary and satire"? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the last paragraph under "Political commentary", about the banning in Malaysia, might go better under "Reception".
The Malaysian censors decided to ban the movie because of its political satire, not because it was a bad movie, so I think that the paragraph about the ban belongs in the "Political commentary" section. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Best Theme Song (拥有)" is showing up as two question marks on my screen. Is this foreign characters that I don't have the software for, or is it really two question marks? If it's the latter, what's that about?
They are Chinese characters. Perhaps you should install the Chinese language pack. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "In contrast, FilmsAsia reviewer Soh Yun-Huei panned its use of political satire, which she felt '[causes] the film to be devoid of innocence and replaced with a sense of agenda and manipulation'." You can probably do away with the in contrast. Also, you might be able to move the causes outside of the quote to avoid having to use brackets. Maybe change the tense to caused.
I use linking words like "in contrast" to vary my sentence structures. If there is a better way to do so, please let me know. Changing the tense to caused would not help, as the tense in the review is causing, but I will consider moving the word outside of the quote. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Some print refs have no author listed. Some refs have the date in parentheses and some don't.
If the references do not have an author listed, it is because Factiva did not contain information about the author. Blame my copy-editor Haemo for the inconsistent positioning of dates; he was the one who helped me format the references. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Overall, very well done. I told you I'd be incredibly picky :-P Definitely let me know if you have questions or want to discuss anything. delldot talk 11:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough and picky review. I have addressed some of your concerns and responded to several others. A few of your concerns will be addressed when Haemo (my copy-editor) and I go through the article again. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
All but four of your concerns have been addressed. The rest will be dealt with when I next chat with Haemo on Google Talk. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, one more thing: I don't think it's necessary to link to the IMDB in both the infobox and the external links section. At least, medical articles aren't supposed to link to eMedicine in both places, which strikes me as analogous. delldot talk 12:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Commas added. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miranda

  • Might want to take out the links of pages which do not exist and avoid using "it" when a proper noun can be used instead. miranda 00:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Jayron32

Looks like lots of other have got here before me. I will try to add something new to the discussion. No particular order or importance on these fixes. Just adding them as I come across them:

  • My spelling isn't all that great, but run Satirises through a spellchecker. Isn't it Satirizes? Satiryzes? Maybe its right, but it looks funny to me... I could be wrong tho...
  • Also, is the film really satire? Not all political commentary or allegory is satire, which usually implies a humourous or absurdist slant on things. I have not seen the film, but if it IS satire, such analysis should be a tad more clear in the article.
  • The redlinks should probably be stubbified in some way. Most of these may be good articles, but consider doing a little cursory research to perhaps get at least one good reference and create a stub for each of them.

Overall, the article is quite good, and I would consider it GA quality in its current state! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tomorrow Never Dies

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…


Thanks, Vikrant 07:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Overall a well-written, good article that seems close to FA standards. It may help to have a FA model article to follow (with the large number of Bond films, is one FA already?). Here are some comments for improvement:

  • Lead seems a bit short, and the "opened the same day as Titanic" nugget is not in the article, but should be (and should be sourced). See WP:LEAD
  • There are a few places that could use some polish / copy editing.
    • Need a word added here: M sends Bond to investigate Carver after Carver Media releases news with critical details hours before these have become [widely? publicly?] known,...
    • Run-on sentence: Bond captures Gupta to use as his own hostage, but Carver kills Gupta, claiming he has outlived his contract, but Bond leads a large battle against the crew and Stamper, and Carver is killed by his own sea drill after trying to kill Bond on his own.
  • Could this be made more specific: As had been the case previously, with no Ian Fleming novels remaining unadapted, an entirely original story was required.? i.e. somehow say which film (and give the year) was the last to be made from an original Ian Fleming novel?
  • Casting section has very short paragraphs - could these be comined? Also this sentence makes no sense (unless SPottiswoode also has his own insurance company): She reputedly wanted to perform her own stunts, but was prevented because director Spottiswoode ruled it too dangerous and uninsured.[15][16]
  • Ref 4 - is IMdB considered a reliable source? Ref 37 is partly broken (template).

These are fairly nit-picky, hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Bond (film series)

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…


Thanks, Vikrant 07:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


Ruhrfisch comments: I like what is here, but felt the article still could use some work and additional material to be more complete. Specific suggestions:

  • There are very few images - how about some of the different actors who have portrayed Bond?
  • The Lead is a bit short for an article of this length, see WP:LEAD
  • Development section seems to have major holes in its coverage - there are more words in the one sentence on the first choice to play Bond (The winner of the contest was a 28-year-old model named Peter Anthony, who, according to Broccoli, had a Gregory Peck quality, but proved unable to cope with the role.[5]) than there is about the iconic and first Bond actor (The producers turned to Sean Connery for five films.) with no mention at all of George Lazenby or Connery's return. Instead after one sentence on Connery we jump from 1961 to 1983 and to Roger Moore, who is first mentioned as already wanting to leave the series.
  • The whole non-EON Bond films matter should be better incorporated into the article - as it is most of the article is told chronologically, then we skip back to talk about Casino Royale and Never Say Never Again (and how did EON get the Casino Royale name back for the most recent, reboot film?).
  • I am surprised there is not a section on villains - some (Blofeld, Jaws) have been in more than one film.
  • The Reception section needs expansion - what do critics think of Bond in general? Which films were seen as best or worst by critics?
  • The whole Avengers part of the Influence on films and television section seems underreferenced and thus seems to possibly be original research - it also seems to have too much weight relative to its importance. How about the Bond films' influences on other popular spy series of the 60s and 70s and later (Man from UNCLE, Get Smart, I Spy, the Dean Martin spy movies (name escapes me), Austin Powers)? Other examples given are under refrenced (or not cited at all).
  • Video games section is on one game - surely there have been others?
  • References 5, 31, and 32 are incomplete.

Again, I liked what I read, learned some things, and think this is a good effort, but it still has some major improvements needed. Hpe this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aliens (film)

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have recently re-written this article in its entirety and hope to take it to FAC in due time. It's currently at GAC and any comments would be appreciated. Thanks, M3tal H3ad (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LuciferMorgan

"Over 3000 people were auditioned for roles in the United Kingdom, although many were rejected." - Do you mean that the 3000 people were UK residents, or that auditions were held in the UK and actors of whichever nationality auditioned in that country? LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

UK residents, thanks for spotting that out. How are you these days? :] M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I wanted to comment as this had not received much feedback. I read the article and was quite impressed, but here are a few suggestions for improvement. I like the current lead, but according to WP:LEAD it should be four paragraphs (for the length of the article). My rule of thumb is that if it is a section or subsection in the article, it should at least be mentioned in the lead. I also noticed there are a number of units which are given as one system only (feet, tonnes) and should really be in both metric and english untis per the MOS. My last question concerns the references - if you are going for FAC (and I think it is quite close as it is), then some of the references do not seem to meet the requirements of WP:CITE. Specifically there are a series of refs which are just a cryptic title: i.e. Ref 7 "57 Years Later - Continuing the story", also refs 12 - 15 and 18. My guess is that these are referring to chapters in a DVD on the making of the film, but that needs to be made much more explicit. Hope this helps - I don't have much more to say becasue I think it is very good already, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Antitrust (film)

I effectively re-wrote the article, and am pleased with its current state. I'd like to think it could make it to A-class or GA-level, but I haven't worked on a film article to this extent before and would like this WikiProject's input on what I've done and any improvements I can make. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a good start, but I think that it will require a fair bit of work to bring it to GA status or beyond. Here are some suggestions:
  1. The infobox should not have references - it generally is for straightforward facts. Anything possibly controversial or challengeable probably should be discussed in more detail in the text, with appropriate references.
  2. There is no need to cite the film itself when discussing plot information which is easily found by watching the film.
  3. The lead should briefly summarize the reception.
  4. The plot section should be somewhat more in-depth and include the ending. While it shouldn't be too long (see the project style guidelines for an idea on length), it should probably touch on more of the characters involved, considering the number of cast mentioned.
  5. Cast should be limited to the most relevant to the plot and should not be comprehensive. Generally, if the cast member isn't mentioned in the plot, then it may be worth questioning their inclusion.
  6. Neither the IMDb nor Yahoo Movies is a reliable source. Furthermore, self-reference to sources within the article text (specifically the cast section) is generally inappropriate.
  7. The allusions should be within the Reception section, as they are critical interpretation of the film and not part of the plot itself.
  8. Reception could be further fleshed out with more excerpts from noted critics which address many of the commonly-believed strengths and weaknesses of the film.
  9. Production needs to go into much further depth, preferably with detail from all major production departments as relevant and sourceable.
  10. A Development and/or Pre-Production section probably is also in order with information as to the genesis of the project, what the original concepts were, how and when names were attached to the major positions, any stumbling blocks, stallings, or dropouts, etc.
  11. The Cast section should briefly encapsule each character as well as discuss specific real-world context for the actor such as character development, research, or casting information.

I'd also recommend looking at several of our FA-class articles to get an idea for how a featured article on a film is structured and composed. Look forward to seeing the article come along! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry!, despite watching this page, I still missed your edits. I verily appreciate your input, please don't think I wasn't paying attention. I'm generally working through your suggestions linearly (and not all at once, Real Life™ and all) and will reply here periodically.

Before I'd even seen your reply here, I decided that as long as all the information in the infobox was used and duly cited elsewhere, it didn't need to clutter the infobox itself. Details such as the music, editor, distributor, and running time aren't well integrable into the prose such as it stands; but in line with the policy on verifiability I want all of that information cited/sourced (not delving into the reliability of the sources under discussion just now). If not citing those factoids in-line, how would you recommend I be able to associate given information with its reliable source?

An aside, I realize these peer review pages are for these purposes, but why do they take place on a separate page as opposed to the articles' talk pages? That would keep discussion with the article where it can arguably belong, and to keep the WikiProject appraised either the discussions could be transcluded here, or tagging the article for PR could categorize it in some notifying fashion? Just curious. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the review is linked within the project banner, so it should be accessible through the talk page. As for the citations on the infobox for those particular fields, I will remind you that WP:V says that reliable sources are only required for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I write effectively challenging myself on everything as I go; if I can't reliably source and cite something, I won't include it. Self-challenging, if you will. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I slightly rewrote the lede to mirror the structure of the article, and touched on the film's reception; would you look at that? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of disaster films

Currently the List of disaster films is being updated and heavily edited. I would like to know how the list is looking, and if it is more useful than it had been prior to my edits.

prior to my edits my latest edit

I used the article on disaster for the headings on this list. - LA @ 21:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The list looks inclusive however I think a table format would be better. The long list down the page with the wasted space on the right hand side yielding minimal information is not an ideal way to enjoy a list like this. Perhaps similar to the ones used here Adventure_films_of_the_1930s then you could group them together by large category and then add finer detail in the individual notes. Would you like help in formatting? I am very quick at massaging data. EraserGirl (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magnolia (film)

This was a highly regarded film when it was released in 1999, dividing critics and is an important milestone in Paul Thomas Anderson's career. I have added a considerable amount of production and reception info to this article and would like any other suggestions or comments to improve it to GA status. Thanks. --J.D. (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone smarter than me will have to discuss how to write the plot section, but I do recommend WP:LEAD, and fleshing out the stuff on themes. Alientraveller (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Belovedfreak

I think this is a hard film to write an article about, and also a difficult article to review because of the complexities of the film, but I'll give it a go.

  • I would get rid of the flag in the infobox (WP:FLAG)
  • The lead needs expanding and needs to summarise the whole article per WP:LEAD.

Overview

  • "narrated by an uncredited Ricky Jay" - needs citation
  • I think that the description of the introduction is perhaps a little too long. "The events, which are well-known urban legends in the universe of the film" - needs citation - how do we know that these three stories are urban legends? Also, the one about Sir Edmund William Godfrey appears to based on a true story, not an urban legend.
  • "while Aimee Mann's version of Harry Nilson's "One" plays in the background:" - I'm not sure that mentioning the song really adds anything to the plot summary.
  • the character relationships table - it is helpful, but I think it borders on original research. The significance of the things that the characters have in common is open to interpretation.
  • sentences like "implying that the unlikely connections" and "Another explanation could be..." definitely seem like OR.

Cast

  • MOS:FILM and it's talkpage seem to favour a list over a table for cast sections. It might be better to try to incorporate some of the cast info elsewhere in the article into the cast section.

Reception

  • the sentence about Rotten Tomatoes' rating says "currently" - could be replaced with "As of..." to avoid it becoming out of date.

Themes

  • "Many essays and other writings..." - I see this has been mentioned on the talkpage. Which essays? If these many essays etc are reliable, they need to be mentioned and used as sources for the article. If they're not reliable, they shouldn't be mentioned at all.
  • Needs at least one more citation - for the last sentence
  • Could do with being expanded, maybe using the "many essays", perhaps moving some of the earlier discussion about Biblical references down to this section.

DVD

  • What region DVD are you talking about? Are these special features available on all regions?
  • This section could do with some info about DVD release / distribution.
  • This section needs citations.

External links

  • I don't think the Arts & faith link is really necessary.
  • The cigarettes and red vines site - is this a fansite? Does it add to the article? Is it reliable? Can info from it be incorporated into the article? I haven't had much of a look at it - it does seem reasonable though.

Anyway, good work so far - I hope this helps. --BelovedFreak 12:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Golden Compass (film)

Seems to me a pretty good article already... I've nominated it for GA, just wanted to see if anyone else would like to comment. Thanks, Mdiamante (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC).

Overall, it's looking very solid, and certainly most of the hard work has been done. Well done! A few points, though:
1. In the lead, unlink the film series (which is currently a circular link). I'd also rewrite, since there is (at the moment) no confirmation of any further films.
2. Some of the real-world information may need tense changes to the past tense, as the film has been released. (Note that the plot summary, however, should remain consistently in the present tense, per MOS.)
3. book's perceived anti-Christian and atheistic themes - correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Pullman openly admitted these biases? If so, the "perceived" should be dropped - it's not POV to state this as fact if the author confirms it.
4. The cast parentheticals in the plot summary section should be dropped, as the cast section handles this function. See the style guidelines for further information.
5. The plot summary is filled with run-ons, dangling phrases, and other sentences which appear muddled, awkward, or grammatically incorrect. This could use a good copy edit. (See the League of Copy Editors, if necessary.)
6. The cast section could use some beefing up with more information for most of the names, both describing the character and the casting, with references. Asriel's entry is distressingly brief, considering that he's a central character.
7. Discussion of the abrupt ending should probably not be in the development section, but instead be moved to concentrate the topic together either at Reception or an independent section regarding the ending.
8. The title section is really not germane to the film directly - it is more appropriate for the article on the book and book series - all that need be mentioned in the film's article is that the title was taken from the American book release, with a passing mention to the UK title. This is already done in the lead.
9. Production section needs a great deal more coverage, and more equitably spread between the various departments. Given the prior stature of the source material, the large budget, wide PR campaign, and recent release, there should be no difficulty finding references for this.
10. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that second unit and plate shots began well before principal photography.
11. Another thing worth looking into that I remember is that the production had originally chosen to shoot on the Panavision Genesis camera before even settling on a DP. (This is precisely why Henry Braham was hired, since he had prior experience on Flyboys.) However, after tests with both the Genesis and 35mm film, even though Braham preferred to use the Genesis, the studio insisted on film. It was shot on Fujifilm, and I'm certain that their UK-based magazine Exposure has some discussion of this. Some of the more recent issues are on their UK website.
12. The fansite speculation on the extended cut is not a reliable source and should be deleted.
I look forward to seeing how it develops! Good editing, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Big Lebowski

This film has quite a dedicated cult following and is a highly regarded comedy. I've cleaned up this article considerably but it could definitely use some more work and I would love to have any comments or suggestions that could help raise this article to GA status. --J.D. (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)

I've just got the DVD of this monumental classic--and hopefully I'm not alone when I know this is actually turning 70...this Friday! Sorry if I can't get back to quicken this up any further till the New Year, but suggestions from the WP community are welcome. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 19:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wild at Heart (film)

A lot of work has gone into this article to improve it with the hopes of achieving a GA status soon. Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. --J.D. (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belovedfreak

Good work so far, J.D. Here are a few thoughts:

Infobox

  • Under "stars" I would just have Cage and Dern, since they are the names that appear on the poster.
  • I would lose the flag icons per WP:MOSFILM.
  • Add the realease date for Australia, as it's an English-speaking country too. And it would be great if you could find release dates for Canada, UK, NZ... Although, I don't know if the fact that they're not on imdb means that the film didn't get a theatrical release in those countries.

Images

  • The screenshots you have used need to state on the image page where you gt them from. The one of Lynch & Dafoe is presumably not from the film itself, yet appears to be. You may run into trouble trying to get this to GA or FA if you don't demonstrate exactly why these images are important to the article. They should really illustrate some critical commentary or something from the film, not just illustrate the film itself.

Lead

  • The lead needs a lot of expansion. It needs to summarise the rest of the article, which it doesn't at the moment. Everything in the lead needs to be expanded on in the article, so there needs to be something about the allusions to The Wizard of Oz — taken from an appropriate source, with references of course.
  • The very first sentence is far too long & unwieldy.

Plot

  • Plot is, I think, a tad on the long side. It only just goes over the guideline in WP:MOSFILMS but could be cut down quite substantially I think without jeopardising relevance & understanding.
  • The sentence beginning "While in jail, Lula has his child..." is slightly confusing. Sounds like Lula has a child while she is in jail. Then "she decides to pick him up" – is she the mother or Lula? I can work out what you mean, but it's a little unclear.
  • "he apologizes for calling the men "homosexuals"..." does he actually say "homosexuals" or are you paraphrasing? I don't think this needs quotation marks.
  • "which looks a lot like Glinda, the Good Witch of The North..." — for a start you're assuming we are all familiar with Glinda, but not everyone will be. Also, you definitely need a citation for this. Someone else needs to have drawn the comparison otherwise it's just your opinion and is original research.

Cast and characters

  • It would be nice to have a mention (whether here or elsewhere) that Diane Ladd is Laura Dern's mother in real life as well as in the film.

Production

  • The sentence with "...that were owned by Dino De Laurentiis when his company went bankrupt..." — did De Laurentiis buy them when his company went bankrupt or were they already owned by him at the time?

Soundtrack

  • Could do with some prose in this section. Any real world info you can find? What kind of reception did it have? At the least, you can put when & by whom it was released. The infobox should be summarising prose in the article.

Reception

  • I would consider splitting this into separate "reception" and "distribution" sections. The bit about achieving an R-rating, for example, isn't really about how the film was received. And maybe put Ladd's nomination together with the bit about the Palm d'Or. Maybe mention the Independent Spirit Awards the film won, and its other nominations?

That's all I can think of for now, hope it helps... --BelovedFreak 19:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Simpsons Movie

Looks to be close to FA. But apparently I'm not allowed to nominate so I'm giving it a PR instead. Buc (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind if you nominate it, I'd just appreciate some notification right before you do, but I'd be glad if you nominated it. But what it really needs now is a copy-edit. Gran2 15:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Glad you think that. Most people on the talk page don't seem to. Buc (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you could submit the article to the WikiProject League of Copyeditors and explain that the goal is to achieve Featured Article status? I got an excellent work-over with Fight Club (film) from one of the people involved there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd been meaning to do that for a while, but never got around to it. That is, until now, thanks for the tip. Gran2 18:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok I've done everything I can to improve the prose. ce isn't one of my strengths though. Buc (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Right I think we might need to expand the lead a bit, but we're almost there. Although to make sure the page is more or less complete, I'd leave any nomination until after the award season is over, or at least until the Academy Award nominations; just in case the film does some how beat Ratatouille to any of the Best Animated Film awards. Gran2 16:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead looks fine. It's longer than a lot of existing FA. Buc (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 06:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Something else I've thought of. Should there be a mention of the intro for He Loves to Fly and He D'ohs? Buc (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Possible, where would it go though? Gran2 08:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Cultural references Buc (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
      • How is it a cultural reference? Gran2 19:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
        • The whole intro was re-made for this episode and make a lot of references to the movie. Buc (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
          • I know it was... but how is that a cultural reference? That section is for references made during the film. Gran2 15:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Don't cultural reference section nomally cover references made both by the subject and to the subject. Buc (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
              • Not usually, at least not in my experiance, anyway, its an FAC now, so we need to archive this. Gran2 17:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)

Okay usual PR stuff, its a GA, so I'm aiming for FA at some point in the future (no matter how far it is). Any comments are welcomed: grammer, glaring errors, info that should be included, sourcing etc. Also if you do know of any good info that for some reason isn't included then that's great as well. Thanks. Gran2 18:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm a complete newbie to peer review, so please take my comment with a grain of salt.
    The plot section heavily covers the beginning of the movie, but the rest is summarised simply with Harry and his friends, Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley, discover the plot and seek to prevent the theft of the stone, which is hidden in a protected chamber at Hogwarts. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot As this is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement, you should include plot twists and a description of the ending. This guideline also says the plot summary should have between 400 and 700 words. This one currently has 217 words. So just expand the summary of the stuff that happens later on in the film, especially the ending. Good work so far! Puchiko (Talk-email) 23:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll look into it, thanks. Gran2 08:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Why the bullet pionts in Cast section? Buc (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Because that's what cast sections have in most cases... Gran2 11:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Then why don't all the roles have them? Buc (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Because that's how some cast sections are. The first three cast members have a large paragraph of info, while the rest just have a sentence or so. As such they work better without bullet points. Gran2 20:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi. The article really isn't bad :) But some suggestions I have include creating a new section entitled "Casting" under the Production section for all the prose that there currently is under the Cast section. A table or bulleted list can than be made for the actors and their roles. Next, I notice the article lacks a release section. What should be done is this: create a "Distribution" section and combine the marketing information with information on the film's release (i.e. rating, premieres, home video- that one's lacking right now- worldwide release dates, etc.). And finally, change "Reaction" to "Reception" or "Response" as "Reaction" more or less implies critical reaction and not necessarily commerical response, which that section also happens to cover. Otherwise, I think it's excellent! The no erz (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)