Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion is closed. |
Hi! I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to turn it into a GA.
Thanks, ◇ Helen Degenerate◆ 00:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes." to the first part of my question or the second? ( Or both? :)) — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 03:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Comments after a quick skim:
Those are my thoughts. Z1720 ( talk) 22:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
The lede typically doesn't need citations, per MOS:CITELEDE, as the information is usually also in other parts of the article.
"Tina "Tigr" Mennett as herself[9][10][11][12]" Are four citations needed for this? Is this a controversial fact?
The "Production" section is quick small, particularly the filming part, and perhaps can be expanded upon or merged.
The "Release" section is also quite small, and I suggest expanding upon this.
"SFe for Time Out magazine said "sometimes the camera is a coolly discriminating, independent viewpoint, sometimes a goggling, peeping eye"." Why is this important and what is this commenting on? Put this quote in context, or summarise what it says.
The Reception section falls into the "X says Y" trap. Read WP:RECEPTION for information on how to avoid this.
Suggest archiving the citations, using IABot. Here's a link to this.
If you are looking for more sources, try WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, or databases from your local library system.
I scanned the article and made a few copy edits. Uri24 ( talk) 15:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
HelenDegenerate, sorry if I seem late to this, but I thought I might pass by WP:PR and put a couple of comments! This is an interesting film and I'll put this on my watchlist. Hopefully you'll benefit from these comments! Also just FYI, I have my own film PR that's anticipating FAC, if you're interested to take a look at. Have a nice day :) ! Gerald WL 04:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
"1986 American quasi-documentary film"-- are you referring to Pseudo-documentary?
Typically, your paragraph 2 (synopsis) would be merged into the first paragraph, also suggest expanding the last paragraph with info about its production and reception (production --> release --> reception)
The poster's alt text needs to be descriptive for blind readers. As brief as possible, describe what is being depicted in the poster
I would typically not cite the infobox; instead I'll put enough detail about its production/release in their respective sections and have the citations there
"$6669" --> "$6,669"
Suggest including more parameters in the infobox, particularly duration and language(s), also producers and cinematographers if any are credited
Note that I copyedited the plot abit
Instead of citing every cast member, you can just write a sentence above the bulleted list: "Cast list adapted from Lesbian Film Guide[1]"
"Kamikaze Hearts, originally named Fact or Fiction,"-- why are there two references placed at different parts of the sentence?
"began shooting the movie"-- the film
Is there no exact date for the November 1986 release?
If the accolades is only one I suggest just putting it in the release section.
I recommend reading WP:RECEPTION on how to craft a good reception section. What I think this article would benefit from is structuring reviews based on topics of discussion, like direction, cinematography, acting, etc. Or one paragraph for positive reviews and another for negative. You did this well in the first paragraph's first sentence, just needs abit more polishing
You can probably use the AllMovie review as citation for the reception instead of dumping it in the exlink
Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion is closed. |
Hi! I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to turn it into a GA.
Thanks, ◇ Helen Degenerate◆ 00:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes." to the first part of my question or the second? ( Or both? :)) — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 03:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Comments after a quick skim:
Those are my thoughts. Z1720 ( talk) 22:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
The lede typically doesn't need citations, per MOS:CITELEDE, as the information is usually also in other parts of the article.
"Tina "Tigr" Mennett as herself[9][10][11][12]" Are four citations needed for this? Is this a controversial fact?
The "Production" section is quick small, particularly the filming part, and perhaps can be expanded upon or merged.
The "Release" section is also quite small, and I suggest expanding upon this.
"SFe for Time Out magazine said "sometimes the camera is a coolly discriminating, independent viewpoint, sometimes a goggling, peeping eye"." Why is this important and what is this commenting on? Put this quote in context, or summarise what it says.
The Reception section falls into the "X says Y" trap. Read WP:RECEPTION for information on how to avoid this.
Suggest archiving the citations, using IABot. Here's a link to this.
If you are looking for more sources, try WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, or databases from your local library system.
I scanned the article and made a few copy edits. Uri24 ( talk) 15:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
HelenDegenerate, sorry if I seem late to this, but I thought I might pass by WP:PR and put a couple of comments! This is an interesting film and I'll put this on my watchlist. Hopefully you'll benefit from these comments! Also just FYI, I have my own film PR that's anticipating FAC, if you're interested to take a look at. Have a nice day :) ! Gerald WL 04:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
"1986 American quasi-documentary film"-- are you referring to Pseudo-documentary?
Typically, your paragraph 2 (synopsis) would be merged into the first paragraph, also suggest expanding the last paragraph with info about its production and reception (production --> release --> reception)
The poster's alt text needs to be descriptive for blind readers. As brief as possible, describe what is being depicted in the poster
I would typically not cite the infobox; instead I'll put enough detail about its production/release in their respective sections and have the citations there
"$6669" --> "$6,669"
Suggest including more parameters in the infobox, particularly duration and language(s), also producers and cinematographers if any are credited
Note that I copyedited the plot abit
Instead of citing every cast member, you can just write a sentence above the bulleted list: "Cast list adapted from Lesbian Film Guide[1]"
"Kamikaze Hearts, originally named Fact or Fiction,"-- why are there two references placed at different parts of the sentence?
"began shooting the movie"-- the film
Is there no exact date for the November 1986 release?
If the accolades is only one I suggest just putting it in the release section.
I recommend reading WP:RECEPTION on how to craft a good reception section. What I think this article would benefit from is structuring reviews based on topics of discussion, like direction, cinematography, acting, etc. Or one paragraph for positive reviews and another for negative. You did this well in the first paragraph's first sentence, just needs abit more polishing
You can probably use the AllMovie review as citation for the reception instead of dumping it in the exlink