The Lord of the Rings (1978 film)
MUCH improved since the last peer review. A lot of new information has been added, and all of the issues discussed in the previous peer review have been dealt with. What's the concensus, guys? ( Ibaranoff24 00:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC))
- You should try to merge the trivia into the article or delete overall per
WP:TRIV. Also the sountrack section seems quite out of place, I would rather wish to see it as prose in the Music sub-section in the Production section. Lastly, the
lead could benefit from some expansion.
- Tutmosis
16:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I moved the information about the soundtrack album to its own article and linked it from the "Music" section on the film's article, I moved some of the trivia into the main article, and I deleted the rest, because I couldn't find anywhere where it would be suitable to place it. ( Ibaranoff24 19:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC))
- Can "Differences from the book" get some
footnotes so that it doesn't look like
original research? It probably could also be compressed a bit since it's not too important. Can the 'Music' sub-section be expanded a bit to include what the music score for the film actually sounded like? Thanks, the article is looking great although I still think the lead could be expanded. After this, the prose is the final issue to be dealt with.
- Tutmosis
20:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Lead - expanded. ( Ibaranoff24 06:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC))
- I think the Plot subsection could do with condensing a bit - it seems a bit long at the moment. And the lead should be a bit longer: it should include something about the reception of the film. Apart from that, the prose is the main issue to be dealt with. Oh, and a few of the images need fair use rationales (and I don't think fair use images are supposed to be uploaded in high-res).
Trebor
20:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Fair use rationale - done. ( Ibaranoff24 23:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC))
- Please see
automated peer review suggestions
here. Thanks,
AZ
t
22:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Took a look at the suggestions and improved on what I could. ( Ibaranoff24 06:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC))
The Lord of the Rings (1978 film)
MUCH improved since the last peer review. A lot of new information has been added, and all of the issues discussed in the previous peer review have been dealt with. What's the concensus, guys? ( Ibaranoff24 00:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC))
- You should try to merge the trivia into the article or delete overall per
WP:TRIV. Also the sountrack section seems quite out of place, I would rather wish to see it as prose in the Music sub-section in the Production section. Lastly, the
lead could benefit from some expansion.
- Tutmosis
16:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I moved the information about the soundtrack album to its own article and linked it from the "Music" section on the film's article, I moved some of the trivia into the main article, and I deleted the rest, because I couldn't find anywhere where it would be suitable to place it. ( Ibaranoff24 19:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC))
- Can "Differences from the book" get some
footnotes so that it doesn't look like
original research? It probably could also be compressed a bit since it's not too important. Can the 'Music' sub-section be expanded a bit to include what the music score for the film actually sounded like? Thanks, the article is looking great although I still think the lead could be expanded. After this, the prose is the final issue to be dealt with.
- Tutmosis
20:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Lead - expanded. ( Ibaranoff24 06:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC))
- I think the Plot subsection could do with condensing a bit - it seems a bit long at the moment. And the lead should be a bit longer: it should include something about the reception of the film. Apart from that, the prose is the main issue to be dealt with. Oh, and a few of the images need fair use rationales (and I don't think fair use images are supposed to be uploaded in high-res).
Trebor
20:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Fair use rationale - done. ( Ibaranoff24 23:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC))
- Please see
automated peer review suggestions
here. Thanks,
AZ
t
22:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Took a look at the suggestions and improved on what I could. ( Ibaranoff24 06:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC))