This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… the film recently started production, and thus warranted its own article. For it to be included in the
POTC Good Topic, it needs a peer review. I'm willing to hear all comments and suggestions.
I would wait until the film is released (so a reception and box office data can be included) before nominating it for a good topic or good article -- so the article will feel more "complete". The article will go through many changes once the film is release, good or bad.
There could be a paragraph included dedicated to the production of the film.
Adding references to the lead should be avoided that are uncontroversial.[2] The release date is already linked, or should be in the "Release" section (see "
Production" below).
Plot
This summary is a direct copy and paste of
this. It should either be in quotations, or better yet, summarized into your own words.[3]
Cast
There should a cite next to each entry (even using the same citation from the casting section for each entry will suffice) since it's likely to be challenged. The cast list tends to invite newer editors and IPs to add unsourced or rumored cast (usually copied from IMDb and they have disclaimer that reads, "Because this project is categorized as being in production, the data is subject to change; some data could be removed completely.")[4]. Or you could just eliminate the cast list altogether and just rely on the prose in the "Casting" section.[5] ;-)
Production
This whole section would look better as level 2 header: "Production", followed by level 3 headers: "Development", "Writing", "Casting", "Filming". I was listing what could go where, but found it much easier to do it myself in my sandbox and show it to you already done. See
here. The way it was laid out in the article is rather confusing and inconsistent.
Marketing
This is unsourced and should be removed[6] or have the {{fact}} tag next to it.[7] It would also fit better under the "Release" section.
References
All the refs look like reliable and valid sources. Yes, even the
Twitter one, IMO. It's from his official feed and it's relevant. Though if a newer, more "reliable" source can be found, use that.[8] Also, you better
WebCite [archive] it (see below) now since it can easily be removed. The citations should have publishing information [work=Los Angeles Times | publisher=(
Tribune Company), etc]. The dates should all be consistent.[9] I personally use the "July 12, 2010" format, by that's just me. The title for the reference should not be in
all caps, even if that's how they are originally written. On articles I heavily work on and aim for GA, I archive (using
WebCite) every single reference and add it in the reference hidden (until the site goes offline) like <!--|archivelink=the webcite archive link|archivedate=date archived-->. This saves a lot of work and heart ache when a good source is removed from the web and you must search for a cached version or another article. Or worst you lose the source for good.[10]
This is my first peer review. I have nominated
an article for a peer review and thought it was only fair that I review an article. I hope you found this helpful. :) MikeAllen 05:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)reply
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… the film recently started production, and thus warranted its own article. For it to be included in the
POTC Good Topic, it needs a peer review. I'm willing to hear all comments and suggestions.
I would wait until the film is released (so a reception and box office data can be included) before nominating it for a good topic or good article -- so the article will feel more "complete". The article will go through many changes once the film is release, good or bad.
There could be a paragraph included dedicated to the production of the film.
Adding references to the lead should be avoided that are uncontroversial.[2] The release date is already linked, or should be in the "Release" section (see "
Production" below).
Plot
This summary is a direct copy and paste of
this. It should either be in quotations, or better yet, summarized into your own words.[3]
Cast
There should a cite next to each entry (even using the same citation from the casting section for each entry will suffice) since it's likely to be challenged. The cast list tends to invite newer editors and IPs to add unsourced or rumored cast (usually copied from IMDb and they have disclaimer that reads, "Because this project is categorized as being in production, the data is subject to change; some data could be removed completely.")[4]. Or you could just eliminate the cast list altogether and just rely on the prose in the "Casting" section.[5] ;-)
Production
This whole section would look better as level 2 header: "Production", followed by level 3 headers: "Development", "Writing", "Casting", "Filming". I was listing what could go where, but found it much easier to do it myself in my sandbox and show it to you already done. See
here. The way it was laid out in the article is rather confusing and inconsistent.
Marketing
This is unsourced and should be removed[6] or have the {{fact}} tag next to it.[7] It would also fit better under the "Release" section.
References
All the refs look like reliable and valid sources. Yes, even the
Twitter one, IMO. It's from his official feed and it's relevant. Though if a newer, more "reliable" source can be found, use that.[8] Also, you better
WebCite [archive] it (see below) now since it can easily be removed. The citations should have publishing information [work=Los Angeles Times | publisher=(
Tribune Company), etc]. The dates should all be consistent.[9] I personally use the "July 12, 2010" format, by that's just me. The title for the reference should not be in
all caps, even if that's how they are originally written. On articles I heavily work on and aim for GA, I archive (using
WebCite) every single reference and add it in the reference hidden (until the site goes offline) like <!--|archivelink=the webcite archive link|archivedate=date archived-->. This saves a lot of work and heart ache when a good source is removed from the web and you must search for a cached version or another article. Or worst you lose the source for good.[10]
This is my first peer review. I have nominated
an article for a peer review and thought it was only fair that I review an article. I hope you found this helpful. :) MikeAllen 05:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)reply