Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion is closed. |
This is the second PR of this article, the first being prior to the GAN reviewed by A person in Georgia. Since then it has gone through some major changes, particularly due to a mentorship review a year ago by David Fuchs. I was just recently able to edit Wikipedia again, and have done some more tweaks, but still am not sure about its suitability for a FAC.
Overall, I just want to make sure the article is free of any "peacocky diction" as Fuchs noted. However I understand it's a long article, so I won't force anyone to review its entirety. Anything is appreciated. Thanks, Gerald WL 04:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
For my reference: Thadeus | Schminnte | Chonk | NØ | HAL | HrtFx
Logging that I will be doing a close read this weekend and will leave some comments then. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 13:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Comments have arrived! This was a wonderful read about a film that I had never heard of, but will be tracking down to watch at some point in the near future. A lot of my feedback is closer to nit-picky than helpful, but hopefully you'll get some use out of it.
Ezekiel sees a canoeist heading to whitewater at Horseshoe Falls- The cited source doesn't look like it specifies Horseshoe Falls, it just says "Niagara Falls."
a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. I am certainly not a specialist and I can recognize Horseshoe!
Then, ultralight aviation was invented. To Fly! then depicts the Saturn IB rocket launch for the Apollo–Soyuz mission- The use of "then" two sentences in a row is a bit repetitive.
credited to the philosophical awakening caused by the aerial view of the world- Maybe "a philosophical awakening," since you haven't mentioned this before and seems more hypothetical than established.
giant-screen filmmaker Francis Thompson- I'm sure this is true but is there a source that explicitly describes him as specializing in "giant-screen" films? I'd be inclined to let it slide if his own article described him as this but I don't see that there either.
With a US$590,000 fund from the Continental Oil Company- What source is this from? If you're going to have a note saying "this other source got it wrong" it would be good to have the source with the correct number right there as well. I actually see that ref 23 (Inspire Friday) has this information, it's just way down in the article.
Principal photography occurred throughout 1975 and lasted 400 days, as per the schedule- Is "as per the schedule" necessary here?
and had "basic" specifications, dismaying the filmmakers- I don't see "basic" being used to describe the specifications in the cited article.
because it could not be repeated, unlike the other scenes, despite their equal level of difficulty- I think you can just say "could not be repeated."
The camera was found wet and jammed, and they immediately cleaned it for around three hours. Eventually, the recording was recovered.- Maybe "and the crew spent three hours cleaning it to recover the recording"?
Film critic Daniel Eagan said most of the views depicted in its opening sequence is "stately, processional- I think "is" should be "are"
The film generally shies away from depicting the Industrial Revolution's effects on the US in favor of the lands' authentic nature.- Maybe "in favor of displaying untouched nature"?
vertiginousor
desultorymeant and had to look them up - Are there synonyms that could be used instead?
Contemporary critics were more positive- This is confusing on two levels, because you've just described a lot of positive reviews and because "contemporary" could mean reviews at the time of release or modern reviews.
Overall, it's a well-written, engaging article and I think will do fine at FAC :). Best of luck! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 00:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, fascinating article you have here! I thought I'd try and jot down a few thoughts here in appreciation of the helpful laundry-list of fixes you gave at my current FAC. Below are some thoughts, listed in section order. For now, I have comments for the lede and notes + references, but I will provide other comments soon. If you think I'm being overly harsh, please tell me. All the best! Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
It was the premiere film of the giant-screen IMAX theater for the National Air and Space Museum's main building, which opened to celebrate the United States Bicentennial.– is "main building" needed here? I suspect the NASM's Lockheed Martin theater would not be confused with the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center's Airbus IMAX Theater unless specified. If this was dropped a more natural sentence could be constructed, for example: "It was the premiere film of the National Air and Space Museum's giant-screen IMAX theater, which opened to celebrate the United States Bicentennial." This would also make it the same as §Release#NASM, which doesn't mention the main building specifically.
The film [...] by Thomas McGrath. The film...– I feel like this repetitive could be dropped or better, the sentences somehow merged.
The film was edited by MacGillivray and Freeman while the score was composed by Bernardo Segall.– is "while" the correct word were? I feel like there isn't a juxtaposition to be highlighted, so maybe change to something like "The film was edited by MacGillivray and Freeman, and featured a score composed by Bernardo Segall".
To Fly! was released on July 1, 1976 and sponsored by Conoco, who funded the film.– I don't think "who funded the film" is needed unless you are going to specify the amount of funding.
The film was later released in other formats too– drop "too" for conciseness.
Several sources mis-stated the running time by a few minutes– I've checked Merriam-Webster, and it gives the spelling of " misstate"
I've realised that this now messes up the order of my comments, but that can't be avoided. Below are all my remaining comments based on the main prose, with some miscelanea that I missed on my first read through. Thanks, Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Fictional hot air balloonist Ezekiel, after reciting a zestful quatrain declaring himself a pioneer, ascends on a voyage around New England.– suggest a rephrase, maybe "After reciting a zestful quatrain declaring himself a pioneer, a fictional hot air balloonist named Ezekiel ascends on a voyage around New England." This has a nicer flow I feel.
Its advent is described as "like the opening of a new eye"– by who? If it is Ezekiel I feel that this could be specified.
This also later inspired the creation of skyscrapers.– is "also" needed here?
... though they were all rejected.,– misplaced punctuation, or is this here for a reason?
Meanwhile a year later...– is meanwhile needed?
...he became convinced that an IMAX theater at the NASM would provide a sense of realism to visitors, and accepted the idea.
...who had previously made surf and giant-screen films with experimental editing, and shot aerials for Jonathan Livingston Seagull (1973) and The Towering Inferno (1974).– ditto above.
He and Freeman storyboarded it with John Divers at their Laguna Beach, California office.– "Laguna Beach, California, office"
Through filmmaker Randal Kleiser whom he knew from his friend Basil Poledouris, MacGillivray took classes with actress Nina Foch to master in directing his cast.– a comma before whom would be warranted here.
Filming paused eight weeks (2.5 months)– is 2.5 months needed here? If you feel it is, it should probably be changed to "two and a half" for consistency.
The illusion of pilots "flying"...– I don't think quotes are needed since it is specified that this is an illusion.
...used for 2001– I assume you are referring to 2001: A Space Odyssey: I think the film's full name should be given here.
the scene smash dissolves and the...– can this be rephrased to move the links apart?
The 35 mm opening where Ezekiel is still ... which the film calls "like the opening of a new eye"– this sentence should be split for readability.
MacGillivray chose the film's score to be composed and conducted by Bernardo Segall, and performed by a 49-piece symphony orchestra at the Burbank Studios which he considered "the most professional and experienced" in California that he could find.– this is another sentence that is quite long.
...three of the six channels on the 35 mm sound follower– as the 35 mm sound follower is not previously mentioned, the sentence makes more sense as "...on a 35 mm sound follower".
It was also viewed as a nationalist film, linking the American quest for national identity to the development of aviation through metanarratives like the linear, westward journey of Americans, though its omniscient visual rhetoric is most distinct in the space sequence– another very long sentence.
The Airbus IMAX Theater of the NASM's annex, the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, has also been screening To Fly!.– do we know since when?
Over 24 countries have screened it, including Germany, Japan, Mexico, and Indonesia (Keong Emas IMAX Theater, Jakarta).– I feel this sentence makes more sense as part of the paragraph immediately after.
Over one million people watched it during its first year at the NASM with approximately 80% of its 485 seats occupied.– comma could be inserted after NASM.
...with guides like those by BioScience and the Michelin Green Guide– Michelin Green Guide is a guide itself, not a publisher.
...similar to other IMAX films that is said to overexploit immersion as a gimmick.– that "are" said to.
The following table only lists the ones mentioned at the MFF website, until other sources are available.– I feel like the second part of this sentence verges on "talk in articles".
Will review soon- just one thing I see off the bat, why is the image of Nolan showing half his face? The image on his own article is (IMO) just fine. MyCatIsAChonk ( talk) ( not me) ( also not me) ( still no) 20:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
More later, a very interesting read so far! MyCatIsAChonk ( talk) ( not me) ( also not me) ( still no) 17:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
More:
More later MyCatIsAChonk ( talk) ( not me) ( also not me) ( still no) 11:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
That's all the comments I have for this article- very nice work, and a fascinating read! Let me know when you take it to FAC! MyCatIsAChonk ( talk) ( not me) ( also not me) ( still no) 11:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I'll leave some comments here. My current FAC for a longer-than-usual article has failed to gain traction and I was hoping you could pleease take a look at it, GWL.-- N Ø 19:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm a huge fan of the technological optimism of the 20th century—the kind of stuff instilled in Epcot before Disney ruined it—so I'm happy to review this. Comments soon. ~ HAL 333 13:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. Here's what I got:
It was deemed significant for increasing the number of IMAX theatersseems like roundabout wording and I'm not fond of "deemed significant"... Maybe change to something along the lines of "The film helped popularize the IMAX format and led to an increase in the number..."
castseems like the wrong word. Maybe "solidified"
and the American territoryas it is followed by an independent clause.
though it only accelerated since the 1960sto "though this only accelerated in the 1960s"
but this was later discarded--> "but this was discarded" - later is redundant
though they were all rejected--> "though all were rejected"
commoly referred as--> "commonly referred to as"
they set the deadline for 1976- what deadline?
did not want the film to be too history-oriented and be more funis unclear
around 30 suggestions, around 20is repetitive
so audiences would realize the film is not a dry historical drama- wording is off
occurred throughout 1975 and lasted five months, as per the schedule--> to something like "occurred over five months in 1975"
the most fun that he and Freeman worked on throughout their 11 years of partnershipis somewhat strangely worded.
Oftentimes they would film together-- > "They often filmed together", more concise per WP:WOULDCHUCK
dismaying them who wanted To Fly! to be innovativeis poorly worded.
Overall, the comprehensiveness looks great, and the sourcing looks great. The only issue is the prose. I think it needs to go through the guild. After that, I would be able to support it at FAC. ~ HAL 333 21:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
started at post-production
The article is certainly comphrensive, but personally I feel at times there is too much info and I would maybe cut some non-vital statistics or facts. Congrats and good luck with the article. Best, Heartfox ( talk) 19:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I apologize for the late review which I forgot I promised. This article looks very comprehensive and refined so I will see what I can find. Wingwatchers ( talk) 04:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion is closed. |
This is the second PR of this article, the first being prior to the GAN reviewed by A person in Georgia. Since then it has gone through some major changes, particularly due to a mentorship review a year ago by David Fuchs. I was just recently able to edit Wikipedia again, and have done some more tweaks, but still am not sure about its suitability for a FAC.
Overall, I just want to make sure the article is free of any "peacocky diction" as Fuchs noted. However I understand it's a long article, so I won't force anyone to review its entirety. Anything is appreciated. Thanks, Gerald WL 04:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
For my reference: Thadeus | Schminnte | Chonk | NØ | HAL | HrtFx
Logging that I will be doing a close read this weekend and will leave some comments then. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 13:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Comments have arrived! This was a wonderful read about a film that I had never heard of, but will be tracking down to watch at some point in the near future. A lot of my feedback is closer to nit-picky than helpful, but hopefully you'll get some use out of it.
Ezekiel sees a canoeist heading to whitewater at Horseshoe Falls- The cited source doesn't look like it specifies Horseshoe Falls, it just says "Niagara Falls."
a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. I am certainly not a specialist and I can recognize Horseshoe!
Then, ultralight aviation was invented. To Fly! then depicts the Saturn IB rocket launch for the Apollo–Soyuz mission- The use of "then" two sentences in a row is a bit repetitive.
credited to the philosophical awakening caused by the aerial view of the world- Maybe "a philosophical awakening," since you haven't mentioned this before and seems more hypothetical than established.
giant-screen filmmaker Francis Thompson- I'm sure this is true but is there a source that explicitly describes him as specializing in "giant-screen" films? I'd be inclined to let it slide if his own article described him as this but I don't see that there either.
With a US$590,000 fund from the Continental Oil Company- What source is this from? If you're going to have a note saying "this other source got it wrong" it would be good to have the source with the correct number right there as well. I actually see that ref 23 (Inspire Friday) has this information, it's just way down in the article.
Principal photography occurred throughout 1975 and lasted 400 days, as per the schedule- Is "as per the schedule" necessary here?
and had "basic" specifications, dismaying the filmmakers- I don't see "basic" being used to describe the specifications in the cited article.
because it could not be repeated, unlike the other scenes, despite their equal level of difficulty- I think you can just say "could not be repeated."
The camera was found wet and jammed, and they immediately cleaned it for around three hours. Eventually, the recording was recovered.- Maybe "and the crew spent three hours cleaning it to recover the recording"?
Film critic Daniel Eagan said most of the views depicted in its opening sequence is "stately, processional- I think "is" should be "are"
The film generally shies away from depicting the Industrial Revolution's effects on the US in favor of the lands' authentic nature.- Maybe "in favor of displaying untouched nature"?
vertiginousor
desultorymeant and had to look them up - Are there synonyms that could be used instead?
Contemporary critics were more positive- This is confusing on two levels, because you've just described a lot of positive reviews and because "contemporary" could mean reviews at the time of release or modern reviews.
Overall, it's a well-written, engaging article and I think will do fine at FAC :). Best of luck! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 00:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, fascinating article you have here! I thought I'd try and jot down a few thoughts here in appreciation of the helpful laundry-list of fixes you gave at my current FAC. Below are some thoughts, listed in section order. For now, I have comments for the lede and notes + references, but I will provide other comments soon. If you think I'm being overly harsh, please tell me. All the best! Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
It was the premiere film of the giant-screen IMAX theater for the National Air and Space Museum's main building, which opened to celebrate the United States Bicentennial.– is "main building" needed here? I suspect the NASM's Lockheed Martin theater would not be confused with the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center's Airbus IMAX Theater unless specified. If this was dropped a more natural sentence could be constructed, for example: "It was the premiere film of the National Air and Space Museum's giant-screen IMAX theater, which opened to celebrate the United States Bicentennial." This would also make it the same as §Release#NASM, which doesn't mention the main building specifically.
The film [...] by Thomas McGrath. The film...– I feel like this repetitive could be dropped or better, the sentences somehow merged.
The film was edited by MacGillivray and Freeman while the score was composed by Bernardo Segall.– is "while" the correct word were? I feel like there isn't a juxtaposition to be highlighted, so maybe change to something like "The film was edited by MacGillivray and Freeman, and featured a score composed by Bernardo Segall".
To Fly! was released on July 1, 1976 and sponsored by Conoco, who funded the film.– I don't think "who funded the film" is needed unless you are going to specify the amount of funding.
The film was later released in other formats too– drop "too" for conciseness.
Several sources mis-stated the running time by a few minutes– I've checked Merriam-Webster, and it gives the spelling of " misstate"
I've realised that this now messes up the order of my comments, but that can't be avoided. Below are all my remaining comments based on the main prose, with some miscelanea that I missed on my first read through. Thanks, Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Fictional hot air balloonist Ezekiel, after reciting a zestful quatrain declaring himself a pioneer, ascends on a voyage around New England.– suggest a rephrase, maybe "After reciting a zestful quatrain declaring himself a pioneer, a fictional hot air balloonist named Ezekiel ascends on a voyage around New England." This has a nicer flow I feel.
Its advent is described as "like the opening of a new eye"– by who? If it is Ezekiel I feel that this could be specified.
This also later inspired the creation of skyscrapers.– is "also" needed here?
... though they were all rejected.,– misplaced punctuation, or is this here for a reason?
Meanwhile a year later...– is meanwhile needed?
...he became convinced that an IMAX theater at the NASM would provide a sense of realism to visitors, and accepted the idea.
...who had previously made surf and giant-screen films with experimental editing, and shot aerials for Jonathan Livingston Seagull (1973) and The Towering Inferno (1974).– ditto above.
He and Freeman storyboarded it with John Divers at their Laguna Beach, California office.– "Laguna Beach, California, office"
Through filmmaker Randal Kleiser whom he knew from his friend Basil Poledouris, MacGillivray took classes with actress Nina Foch to master in directing his cast.– a comma before whom would be warranted here.
Filming paused eight weeks (2.5 months)– is 2.5 months needed here? If you feel it is, it should probably be changed to "two and a half" for consistency.
The illusion of pilots "flying"...– I don't think quotes are needed since it is specified that this is an illusion.
...used for 2001– I assume you are referring to 2001: A Space Odyssey: I think the film's full name should be given here.
the scene smash dissolves and the...– can this be rephrased to move the links apart?
The 35 mm opening where Ezekiel is still ... which the film calls "like the opening of a new eye"– this sentence should be split for readability.
MacGillivray chose the film's score to be composed and conducted by Bernardo Segall, and performed by a 49-piece symphony orchestra at the Burbank Studios which he considered "the most professional and experienced" in California that he could find.– this is another sentence that is quite long.
...three of the six channels on the 35 mm sound follower– as the 35 mm sound follower is not previously mentioned, the sentence makes more sense as "...on a 35 mm sound follower".
It was also viewed as a nationalist film, linking the American quest for national identity to the development of aviation through metanarratives like the linear, westward journey of Americans, though its omniscient visual rhetoric is most distinct in the space sequence– another very long sentence.
The Airbus IMAX Theater of the NASM's annex, the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, has also been screening To Fly!.– do we know since when?
Over 24 countries have screened it, including Germany, Japan, Mexico, and Indonesia (Keong Emas IMAX Theater, Jakarta).– I feel this sentence makes more sense as part of the paragraph immediately after.
Over one million people watched it during its first year at the NASM with approximately 80% of its 485 seats occupied.– comma could be inserted after NASM.
...with guides like those by BioScience and the Michelin Green Guide– Michelin Green Guide is a guide itself, not a publisher.
...similar to other IMAX films that is said to overexploit immersion as a gimmick.– that "are" said to.
The following table only lists the ones mentioned at the MFF website, until other sources are available.– I feel like the second part of this sentence verges on "talk in articles".
Will review soon- just one thing I see off the bat, why is the image of Nolan showing half his face? The image on his own article is (IMO) just fine. MyCatIsAChonk ( talk) ( not me) ( also not me) ( still no) 20:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
More later, a very interesting read so far! MyCatIsAChonk ( talk) ( not me) ( also not me) ( still no) 17:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
More:
More later MyCatIsAChonk ( talk) ( not me) ( also not me) ( still no) 11:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
That's all the comments I have for this article- very nice work, and a fascinating read! Let me know when you take it to FAC! MyCatIsAChonk ( talk) ( not me) ( also not me) ( still no) 11:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I'll leave some comments here. My current FAC for a longer-than-usual article has failed to gain traction and I was hoping you could pleease take a look at it, GWL.-- N Ø 19:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm a huge fan of the technological optimism of the 20th century—the kind of stuff instilled in Epcot before Disney ruined it—so I'm happy to review this. Comments soon. ~ HAL 333 13:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. Here's what I got:
It was deemed significant for increasing the number of IMAX theatersseems like roundabout wording and I'm not fond of "deemed significant"... Maybe change to something along the lines of "The film helped popularize the IMAX format and led to an increase in the number..."
castseems like the wrong word. Maybe "solidified"
and the American territoryas it is followed by an independent clause.
though it only accelerated since the 1960sto "though this only accelerated in the 1960s"
but this was later discarded--> "but this was discarded" - later is redundant
though they were all rejected--> "though all were rejected"
commoly referred as--> "commonly referred to as"
they set the deadline for 1976- what deadline?
did not want the film to be too history-oriented and be more funis unclear
around 30 suggestions, around 20is repetitive
so audiences would realize the film is not a dry historical drama- wording is off
occurred throughout 1975 and lasted five months, as per the schedule--> to something like "occurred over five months in 1975"
the most fun that he and Freeman worked on throughout their 11 years of partnershipis somewhat strangely worded.
Oftentimes they would film together-- > "They often filmed together", more concise per WP:WOULDCHUCK
dismaying them who wanted To Fly! to be innovativeis poorly worded.
Overall, the comprehensiveness looks great, and the sourcing looks great. The only issue is the prose. I think it needs to go through the guild. After that, I would be able to support it at FAC. ~ HAL 333 21:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
started at post-production
The article is certainly comphrensive, but personally I feel at times there is too much info and I would maybe cut some non-vital statistics or facts. Congrats and good luck with the article. Best, Heartfox ( talk) 19:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I apologize for the late review which I forgot I promised. This article looks very comprehensive and refined so I will see what I can find. Wingwatchers ( talk) 04:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)