Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Peer review/Zodiac (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[edit] Zodiac (film)

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

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

Plot definitely could use expansion, also a 1-2 fair use pics could be added to the production section. Quadzilla99 04:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally I changed one or two things—saying reviews have been generally positive when it got an 87% score on rottentomatoes, strikes me as suffering from wiki NPOV paranoia. With numbers like that it's well within reason to say they've been highly positive. The actors complaints don't belong in the post-production section, also the MPAA and Box office sections are hopeless one sentence stubs, either expand them or merge them under a section called simply "Reaction". Here's a couple of phrases that could be put into more formal language:
"he was raised in Marin County during the Zodiac Killer's reign of terror." Replace reign of terror with active years or something of the sort.
Addressed by Ringworm. Quadzilla99 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
"Graysmith went from cartoonist to crime-stopper." Very hokey.
Addressed by Ringworm. Quadzilla99 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
"Fincher was keen to work with Shire" This might be British language, sounds informal to me.
Addressed by Ringworm. Quadzilla99 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Also as a side note I've never seen the film so I didn't read the plot section, so I don't know if that needs work. Quadzilla99 04:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all of these helpful suggestions. I've implemented several of them already. Count Ringworm 14:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay nice work, I'll look it over again today or tomorrow and see what else I can point out. Quadzilla99 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erik

  • There should be 2 or 3 lead paragraphs. No film article of Featured status has 4 lead paragraphs.
Addressed by Ringworm. Count Ringworm 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I assume there's a reason why the Plot section isn't expanded?
  • In the Infobox Film template, there's too many names listed under "starring". This attribute is meant for those who have top billing (such as Downey and Gyllenhaal), and from what I've seen, the list shouldn't exceed five names, unless it's an ensemble film like Bobby. Instead, is it possible to create a Cast section? A straightforward list of actors/roles could be created, or you could add descriptions to the characters, which may help avoid being long-winded in the Plot section down the road. (Note: You can also embed the actors' names like I did at Fight Club, but since this is a film with multiple roles, I think a Cast section would be more easily read.)
Addressed by Ringworm. Count Ringworm 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The Research subsection should be entitled the Development section, as more things happen in that subsection than research -- seeking financing, getting help from sources who dealt firsthand with the Zodiac killer.
Addressed by Ringworm. Count Ringworm 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I would recommend "Principal photography" being re-titled to "Filming", and "Post-production" to "Editing" -- they seem to be better titles for the stages of production that the film goes through.
Addressed by Ringworm. Count Ringworm 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know if there's a reason for this, but I see numerous paragraphs that don't have citations for sentences at the end. I don't know if the citation is included in the next paragraph, but if there's a break like that, there should be a citation located at the end of a paragraph. An example is the last sentence in the first paragraph of Research. If it's from citation #3, which is the next citation mentioned in the second paragraph, then you should duplicate the reference so the sentence in question has the reference at the end of it. Hope that makes sense.
  • Overall, I notice in the Production section that there are many quotes, more than what seems necessary. My rule of thumb is that quotes should be used if they are opinionated but still contribute something to the article. If there are quotes that describe something that's been done in production, then it should probably be written in prose. Some examples below:
*"...got sucked into the Zodiac lore, much like he did and much like a lot of people have. I tried to translate that into the script." This can be rewritten more tightly as prose.
*"...the case had taken on its own mythic proportions over the years, and it was our job to undo all that. To draw a clean line between fact and fiction." Could be rewritten as prose.
*"there are no car chases in it. People talk a lot in it. It’s about a cartoonist and a murderer who never got caught. So, yeah, the studio is nervous." Could be rewritten as prose, like, "The studio was concerned about the heavy dialogue and the lack of action scenes, as well as the inconclusive nature of the story arc." There are more instances of quotes that could either be removed or rewritten in prose.
  • I think in general, there may need to be some copy-editing done for the writing. Some sentences strike as clumsy, such as, "Once he knew the camera’s limitations only then did Savides feel comfortable with it." Also, parentheses should be avoided wherever possible. For example, "Not all of the cast was happy with Fincher’s exacting ways and perfectionism (some scenes required upwards of 70 takes)..." could be rewritten so parentheses aren't used.
  • Reception should begin with where Zodiac premiered. The first sentence about Variety doesn't tell me the date of its world premiere, and after that, I'm already reading reviews of the film. When was Zodiac first commercially released? I think it's usually best to start out Reception sections with numbers, such as box office performance and number of theaters (if it's relevant), because that's an initial objective approach to the film's performance. Then the critical reaction can follow afterward. Also, I would suggest removing the IMDb user poll because since they are not bona fide polls, there is no guarantee that there is no vote-stacking involved. For example, 300 had 2,000 votes that put it up the Top 250 at IMDb, before the film even came out.
  • In the external links, are there any links that the film's Wikipedia article already addresses? External links should be for supplementary content, so if most of a link's content is used in the article, it probably doesn't need to be kept.
Addressed by Ringworm. Count Ringworm 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The images need fair use rationale. Also, two images are misidentified as screenshots -- the one with Fincher in the frame, filming the scene, and the other with the side-by-side VFX comparison.

You have a lot of good content established in the article already, but I think it's a matter of molding it into a more encyclopedic structure. Feel free to comment on my critique, and I'll explain my reasoning for my suggestions if I need to. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment The length of the lead isn't overly long. It does contain several stubby paragraphs, which could be condensed in number. Quadzilla99 16:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all of the suggestions! I will get to work improving this article with these comments as helpful guidelines. Count Ringworm 18:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)