Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Peer review/Dirty Dancing/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Dirty Dancing
Peer review is requested for Dirty Dancing, the classic 1987 film. This year, 2007, is the 20-year anniversary of its release, and I've done a lot of expansion of the article, and would like to see what more might be needed to get it to FA status. All comments and assistance towards this goal would be appreciated. --Elonka 00:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Remove "summary" from plot heading, covert lists to prose, "recognition" to "response" with positive and critical reviews alike. Alientraveller 16:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comments:
-
- The Plot section seems fine except for the interrupting mention of the final dance sequence "that is cited as 'the most goose-bump inducing' dance finale in movie history." This out-of-place mention may be more appropriate in the Reception section, with citation. However, the caption could remain (but needs the citation there, too). The caption should describe the scene first, then mention/cite its significance. That way, there doesn't have to be an out-of-place mention in the text itself.
- Dirty Dancing should be identified at the beginning of the Production section, instead of "The movie".
- "In Spring 1986" should be "In spring of 1986,"
- "...and it was there that she met their vice-president..." has unnecessary verbiage. It can be written as, "...where she met their vice-president..."
- "He showed the script to Dori Berinstein, another Vestron VP, and they agreed to try and find financing for the film, provided that they found a new director for the project." This sentence could be broken up, as there's a lot of information in it to digest in one reading.
- "The film was budgeted at $5 million (by comparison, average cost per film at that time was $12 million)." Ideally, parentheses should be avoided. I recommend writing it as, "The film was budgeted at $5 million at a time where the average cost per film was $12 million."
- "...but initial dancing tests when he was partnered with Grey, were a disaster." Calling it a "disaster" sounds too colorful. If it was said that way, then quote it. Otherwise, describe it more neutrally, such as, "...did not meet the producers' expectations."
- Another thing I noticed; "they" is mentioned is a couple of times in the second paragraph of Pre-production, and I'm not sure who "they" is referring to. Can this be clarified?
- "Swayze's agent advised him not to take the role, but Swayze read the script, and decided to take the part anyway because he liked the multi-leveled character of Johnny." This is a run-on sentence with too much information for one reading. Write it as something like, "Swayze read the script and liked the multi-leveled character of Johnny. Against his agent's advice, he decided to take the part."
- "Bergstein described it as, 'breathtaking.'" Quotations can be tricky. For a fragmented quote such as this, it would be written as, "Bergstein described it as 'breathtaking'."
- "However, Westheimer backed out when she learned the role involved being a kleptomaniac, and so the role went instead to 79-year-old Paula Trueman." While not a run-on, it's a long sentence. It could be written, "However, Westheimer backed out when she learned the role involved being a kleptomaniac. Instead, the role went to 79-year-old Paula Trueman." Hope you understand the need to break up sentences like these.
- "The cast lived together in the same hotel at Lake Lure, and the line blurred between lives on- and off-camera, as the dancing and drinking went on nearly non-stop. Rehearsals quickly turned into disco parties involving nearly every castmember, even non-dancers such as Jack Weston." This does not sound encyclopedic at all. It can be rewritten not to be so casual.
- Autumn is wiki-linked twice in one sentence. It's a common word, so it doesn't need to be wiki-linked in either instance.
- "They had already been at odds in their previous project, Red Dawn." "At odds" may be too vague for all Wikipedia readers. "They had trouble getting along" might be a clearer way of describing what happened on Red Dawn.
- "They worked things out enough to have a superb screentest" -- "superb" is too colorful and not encyclopedic enough. Something like "positive" or "collaborative" would be more appropriate.
- "Swayze & Grey" → "Swayze and Grey"
- "Swayze was impatient to finish the scene, and found Grey's behavior annoying. But as it turned out, the scene worked and was put into the film as-is, complete with Grey's giggling and Swayze's annoyed expression, and it became one of the most famous scenes in the film." "But as it turned out" is not encyclopedic writing.
- The "Main cast" section should not be after Reception. Can it be placed after Plot but before Production? Also, something to do to expand the section is to take the opportunity to describe some characters, especially the non-starring ones, in more detail. Something else to include is any relevant information about what the actors thought of their roles, or how they approached their roles.
- The Cultural impact section should be written as as prose, since this is a trivia section in disguise. "Many people list the film as one of their all-time favorites" is not cited, as the following sentences do not provide any general audience reception, just about an actress and about British women liking it.
- Remove the "After the movie" section. The information barely has anything to do with the film itself. If Dirty Dancing helped any stars into the spotlight, then that can be mentioned and cited. The path of the cast and crew should be left to their own Wikipedia articles.
- The "Other versions" section should be written as prose. Avoid lists whenever possible, especially with bits of unconnected information, because this is a trivia setup. The "Pop culture references" is trivial, and may not warrant inclusion. If it needs to be kept, it should be merged with the "Cultural impact" section.
- IMDb should not be used as a serious reference because it is a user-submitted site similar to Wikipedia. It should be identified as an external link instead.
- I just noticed that the "goosebump-inducing" quote is cited in the lead. The citation can be duplicated to point to what's in the Plot section's image caption.
- While I see that this is a work in progress, I want to point out the uncited parts anyway. The last paragraph in Pre-production is not cited, as well as the second third, fifth, and six paragraphs in Filming. Post-production is completely uncited except for one. If a whole paragraph is uncited except for the very end, then it's naturally assumed that the last citation covers the whole paragraph's content. If this is not the case, then citation-needed tags should be included at the appropriate intervals.
- For the Reception, is the $170 million figure domestic or worldwide? There should be two figures for both the studio's home country and the overall gross.
- The article is lacking a Critical reaction section. There needs to be observations from film critics about the various aspects of the film, such as the dancing, the actors' performances, the direction, et cetera.
- Hope you can make use of my suggestions. 155.91.28.231 18:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
