![]() | This WikiProject Film page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. | ![]() |
I want this article to be moved to B-class. Please share your review comments. "Legolas" ( talk) 12:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
To my eyes, this article compares favorably to a number of GA-quality film articles. I'm unfamiliar with the ins and outs of entertainment-related articles, and would appreciate some feedback before I go through the GA process. Nyctonymous 00:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've expanded it a great deal over the last few days and believe that it is close to if not at
good article status. I would appreciate review comments with an eye to leading to a successful GA nomination.
Otto4711 (
talk)
21:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments Great work on this article! I have a few suggestions; some are pretty nitty-gritty but keep in mind I'm not a film person but a literary person.
I hope my notes have helped. Feel free to ignore ones you deem irrelevant. I think it has a good chance of passing GA status, especially once the long sentences are addressed. Good luck! -- Midnightdreary ( talk) 14:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because alot of work has gone into this article within the past several months and I am going to make my final attempt at getting this article to FAC status. Feel free to provide any suggestions that you may have and I will address them in a timely manner. I will leave the review open until the other major contributing editors that have helped me with this project all agree that it is ready for a FAC nomination.
Thanks, DrNegative ( talk) 17:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement, looking at from an FAC viewpoint.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been cleaned up and polished, and I just want to know what everyone thinks of it after all this time it has been worked on.
Thanks, Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 02:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to know if my contributions have been of any benefit.
Thanks, Kilnburn ( talk) 21:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Images:
Layout and structure:
Overall, I think most of the content is there. But it needs major massaging and some reorganization. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 19:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a former FA candidate and I would like to see it reach FA status as soon as possible. I know there is some work to be done on the article, such as expanding the legacy section, reception and possibly creation of the film, as it's one of the most important horror films of all time. I am also open to any other suggestions for improving this article.
Thanks, EclipseSSD ( talk) 17:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I started working on this article when it looked like this. Over the last five months and practically singlehandedly, I've expanded it to what it is today. I've yet to write a GA or an FA and I've decided to make this my first one of those but I would appreciate some help from editors more qualified than myself to tell me what looks good and what needs improvement. In its current state, I believe the article qualifies as a class B but, again, input would be appreciated.
Thank you! SWik78 ( talk • contribs) 16:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks like you are off to a great start! Comparing the revisions, I appreciate the removal of the taglines, the expansion of the Plot section, and the addition of three substantial sections. With that said, here are some recommendations to continue improving the article:
If you would like help with finding resources, just let me know. I'd be happy to do so. I have a few places I can look. :) — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 22:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a former FA candidate and I would like to see it reach FA status as soon as possible. I know there is some work to be done on the article, such as expanding the legacy section, reception and possibly creation of the film, as it's one of the most important horror films of all time. I am also open to any other suggestions for improving this article.
Thanks, -- EclipseSSD ( talk) 17:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get input before taking it to FAC in the future. This is only the second film article I've extensively worked on, so if someone sees something missing, tell me. I know the 'cast' section hasn't been completed, but if people could look over my prose that would be great too.
Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 15:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I found this to be generally quite well done, although I agree there are some places where the language could be smoothed a bit, as well as some places in Cast that need to expanded (Uhura). Here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The article discusses Spock's death a lot and I think it should go in the lead, considering it is the start of the story arc ending in The Voyage Home? I know we maintain a fine line between courtesy and common sense on the readers' part, but what's the use of not mentioning such a famous cliffhanger? Alientraveller ( talk) 15:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller ( talk) 18:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has the potential to be a FA, but I think we could use some advice on clearing up defects in the article before proceeding with FAC.
Thanks,
Wehwalt (
talk)
23:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Comments from [[ SriMesh | talk 01:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)]]
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
I am requesting this peer review in order to solicit opinions from the project about the cast section of the article, the content of which has been the subject of a dispute for some time now. I feel that the current "in-world" descriptions of the characters is inappropriate, unencyclopaedic, and misleading. I would like to hear the opinion of people involved in editing other film articles so that this matter can be settled. In general, this is a decent film article, but is in need of polishing. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 03:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I been cleaning up this article quite a bit and feel that it is at least ready to be upgraded to B status but would like any comments, suggestions and/or help to upgrade this popular cult comedy to GA status. Thanks.-- J.D. ( talk) 19:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need other feedback to get this to FA-status. I still need to add Tim Burton's DVD audio commentary, but I'm open to other suggestions. More importantly I probably should expand the lead section.
Thanks, Wildroot ( talk) 00:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I have put a lot of work into cleaning up this article and beefing up the content in order to get it to GA status. The lead paragraph obviously needs work and the plot summary needs to be trimmed considerable. Any help and/or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.-- J.D. ( talk) 17:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for review as i've done a lot of research for it and I can't think of anything more to add. I'd like to give it one quick peer review again before nominating for a GA. Cheers! Andrzejbanas ( talk) 19:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone significant improvement in the last week or so, and I'd like to get feedback on how I can further improve it before I send it up for GA, and possible later FA.
Thanks, -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 18:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise GA material. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Expanded plot, reorganized, added links. Thank you, Shir-El too 14:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it should become a
good article again and I would like to know what else needs to be done to achieve that goal.
Thanks, CyberGhostface ( talk) 14:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
In the plot section maybe it's not best to say "obviously inspired" even if it is, because that's kind of a odd way to put it. It sounds too unfactual. If you want to include it, perhaps it's best to state that strongly resembles it.
In the infobox, the flags should be gone as WP:FilmRelease suggests against it. I'll change them myself!
Try to put ciations that come around commas after the comma to increase readability.
The award section in release is a bit list-y. Perhaps it could be in a chart or expanded? These awards don't suggest what year they were given out or what's the notability of them.
The musical and differences form the book section need citations but are also pretty well integrated otherwise.
Good job overall! Andrzejbanas ( talk) 19:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've just created this article and I would like to take it all the way to FA status. But let's concentrating on working on GA first :)
Any suggestions or comments you have are much appreciated.
Thanks, Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 08:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Will do Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive advice on how to further improve it before nominating it for FA. Criticism and comments would be most appreciated.
Thanks, — Mizu onna sango15 Hello! 05:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC).
Try adding info from the special features of the 2-disc special edition. If you have it. If not maybe I might help. I worked a little bit on that article around early-December (added some of those internet links alongside User:Alientraveller and User:Erik. You could get their opinion as well. — Wildroot ( talk) 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention the plot section could be trimmed down a lot. There's also Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street ( ISBN 1845767047) that includes some in-depth making of the movie. More info might there. Could list that in a "Further Reading" section.— Wildroot ( talk) 03:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I brought the plot section to six paragraphs. Not really finished yet. Didn't take too long. I'm somewhat busy trying to get Tim Burton's Batman to FA status. Two Burton films to FA status in the same month. That would be amazing.— Wildroot ( talk) 01:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I brought the plot down to four paragraphs, but you guys might one to check because I might have made an itty bitty mistake. — Wildroot ( talk) 06:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Seems pretty good to me. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Bzuk comments Since I have had the article on my watchlist for awhile, I have noted a lot of improvements. Some minor points to consider:
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 03:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC).
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the quality of this article has recently significantly improved and the article was previously assessed as stub class. The article appears to meet the criteria for a B article, however I would appreciate a second opinion.
Thanks, UniversalBread ( talk) 20:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Done
Done
Done
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 0Nl, use 0 Nl, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 0 Nl.
[?]Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
UniversalBread ( talk) 21:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see other editors feedback to get this article to FA status. I've worked hard on this article (obviously) and have brought it up to GA status. I've used up all links I could find (books, magazine articles, websites, etc.) to get great info for Batman. I have very few things to look at (such as DVD special features). Anyway I need your opinion. Should I add any "Themes" or pictures or what?
Thanks, Wildroot ( talk) 20:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments-Good article (obviously). Here's how you can make it an FA (very brief and shallow runthrough):
I'll have more comments later. Dabomb87 ( talk) 02:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing. I tend to include the ISBN of a book/novel/comic book if it doesn't have its own Wikipedia article. I don't really know why I do that. Producer Michael Uslan made that comment of Batman's popularity waning in the late 1970s. I will get to work on the Legacy section. — Wildroot ( talk) 05:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 19:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Bzuk Comments Overall, the article reads well, and my comments are to address mainly minor points:
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 04:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC).
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
This film is a much beloved cult film and I've put a lot of work updating the Production and Reception sections with content and citations and tried to remove unsourced sections but I would like any more suggestions, comments or contributions to help upgrade this film to GA status.-- J.D. ( talk) 16:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Some initial thoughts:
These are just the recommended broad strokes for the article. There may be some copy-editing needed. I can help with that if you wish, and also possibly see about other available references. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 16:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this article has now reached 'Start' class, but I'd like to know where to go from here. Specifically, I'ld like to know where to get information about this specific film from. I've searched in Google and all I get are reviews. I've seen other pages, like Jaws, etc. and their references are articles written at the time of the movie's release, giving information. I don't know where to find that kind of stuff about a film like this that's not that well known and released 17 years ago. Help appreciated. - Dalta ( talk) 18:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to make this article a GA (and, in the long run, a FA). Some other editors and I have edited it extensively, and would like some input as to whether it will be ready for a GA nomination anytime soon, and what we need to do to prepare it for GA-status. Any input or suggestions would be much appreciated. Thanks! SunDragon34 ( talk) 04:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
(Of course, I would love to know anything we could do to prepare it for FA, as well.) SunDragon34 ( talk) 04:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I am also interested in knowing how we can expand the article in the places it needs work on. (I already know the history section needs work.) SunDragon34 ( talk) 04:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
To get this to GA, then FA, would be a great achievement, with this probably being one of the most important films ever made.
All in all, the main thing the article needs is expansion. If you don't already have it, you should consider getting the special edition DVD, which I'm sure will contain plenty of information. Also, there are bound to have been multiple books and articles written about the film, so that might be worth looking into. Good luck, Gran 2 08:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I might be echoing Gran here and there, but when it comes to comments and suggestions, I go by the phrase "the more the merrier".
So, overall, the medicine this page needs is referencing and expansion. One last echo—the special edition DVD is always an indispensible source for an film's article. The commentaries alone may end up referencing Production. Best of luck, Cliff smith ( talk) 18:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
That's all for now, on a quick perusal. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 02:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC).
Good luck, Dalejenkins | 13:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been up for a "featured article" nomination several times and has been denied. I have extensive knowledge of this movie and its production and I would like to help this article achieve its goal of a "featured article".
I have been looking over the Talk page and I noticed many submissions and clean-up has been done since this article was last nominated.
What I really want is more input from other editors as to how we can improve this article. I believe it really stands out, but Im sure it could use some minor work to top it off.
Let us know what you think guys.
Thanks,
DrNegative (
talk)
07:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem on the copyedit—I'm just finishing up a couple other projects. I should be able to get started right away, but you probably won't see any edits until tomorrow. Today will just be analysis and note-taking. I look forward to seeing The Lion King pass its FA review. -- AnnaFrance (talk — blunders) 14:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
That's enough to work with for now.
If these problems are all dealt with I may post more suggestions to improve the article.
If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.
Thanks. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 03:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)That's it. I hope these suggestions were helpful. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 15:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a good article. I need to at least get this up to FA status. It is one of the best articles on Wikipedia in my opinion. Any feedback on how to improve it shall be very much appreciated.
Thanks,
Greg
Jones
II
23:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
That's a start - hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd really like to work on bringing this article up to
Good Article status. A little work has been done already, but any suggestions, ideas, comments, and advice would really be appreciated. Thanks,
Cinemaniac (
talk •
contribs •
critique)
01:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Who doesn't love Bugs? This is a great article to want to bring to GA, so I definitely applaud your effort. Some ideas/suggestions:
I hope this helped! If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact me via my talk page. María ( habla con migo) 13:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks more than simply a "start" article, after all, me and some other random users have been adding on to it. Looking for review from film project editors on how to potentially decrease the amount of plot spoilers in summary and characters sections, as well as anything else you want to comment on or have problems with about the article. Also needs somebody to review the "criteria met" parameters in the film project banner. chant essy 13:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Overall, more references and more info on the film's development and its critical reception are needed. Cliff smith ( talk) 20:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Somanytictoc ( talk) 21:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been working hard on improving this article as I feel it is an important film. I would welcome any suggestions, comments and help to improve it in the hopes of getting it promoted to GA status. Right now, the obvious improvements are editing down the plot summary, improving the lead paragraph and I would like to add a Legacy section.-- J.D. ( talk) 22:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Other than that, it's shaping up alright. Cliff smith ( talk) 16:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Though this article has become gotten quite a bit larger since its time as a stub, I'd like ideas on how it can be improved, particularly on the lead and production (Where I've had trouble finding more information). If someone could look through the entire article as well and give advice, that would be appreciated. Yojimbo501 ( talk) 19:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Each bullet point denotes a section but I veer off into generalities occasionally.
Anyway, hopefully my comments will be of some help. It's definitely coming along. Good work. Doctor Sunshine talk 08:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
One more thing is that the Variety review is for 1961. Perhaps the reviewer spoke Japanese? But, since we can't have contradicting information, I'll remove mention of the American release date. Yojimbo501 ( talk) 21:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC) I've also recently added a Analysis section, which I thought ran too short (though there is bound to be something else you showed me which can go in). So, I added something from the Reception section. Looking at some of the Reception section, I realized that a lot of it wasn't actually made of reviews, but that it would probably fit well into the Analysis section. Do you think there are any particular parts which would fit well into the Analysis section? The reception has been called a bit long, so I'm asking you so the sections remain balanced. Yojimbo501 ( talk) 23:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I also just moved quite a bit of stuff from the Reception section into the Analysis section. Yojimbo501 ( talk) 04:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a Good Article and I want to get it up to Featured status. The previous peer review can be found
here. Any feedback and suggestions on improving it for FA will be very much appreciated
Thanks, Greg Jones II 20:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Sorry to hear that fingers are broken across the nation today. Try here: http://www.timeout.com/film/news/488/ to see that the interview is fully covered by numerous media. That some editor chose one site covering it over another shouldn't impugn the source automatically, AGF when an apparently sourced item appears, and the content matches the source. Do some legwork, google a bit. '2008 Nolan Dorchester Batman' found me a number of websites covering the interview. ThuranX ( talk) 20:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see it get to at the least Good Article status, and preferably FA at last. There was a previous Peer Review, but that was all the way back in 2006 and the article is much improved. Thanks,
rootology (
T)
18:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Golden Film is a comprehensive article, that treats its topic without going into unnecessary details. It follows Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability and style. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know which improvements the article needs in order to pass as featured article. –
Ilse
@
13:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Article is generally well done but the prose is a bit awkward and could use a copy edit. Here are some suggestions for improvement:
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
This article shows much information that I think should be reviewed so that I can understand how close the article is to an award. -- Tj999 ( talk) 04:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
J.D. comments: The first thing that I noticed is that there is a wealth of production information but only one citation in the entire Production section despite several references listed further down the article. Quotes should be cited as should every paragraph.-- J.D. ( talk) 22:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so the article should have some references. -- Tj999 ( talk) 17:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
O.K., so as a Christian I'm against the subject of this film, but I'm bringing this to attention because of its 112K page size and 170 refs (as of typing).
This will look good as an FA when it arrives on DVD; for now, our focus is to simplfy it down to a manageable ±55K.
Thanks, Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 19:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: for clarification. The peer review request is made by a user who, as far as I can see, has played no part in the editing. I am confused by the wording of the request: "...so as a Christian I'm against the subject of this film", and I don't understand the sentence: "This will look good as an FA when it arrives on DVD; for now, our focus is to simplfy it down to a manageable ±55K". Who is the "our" in "our focus"? My review is aimed at effecting general improvements to the article, rather than assisting a particular agenda. Before I offer my comments, would Sigrandson care to amplify on whose behalf he/she is acting? Brianboulton ( talk) 16:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Brief Ruhrfisch comment: Thanks to Brianboulton for agreeing to review this. I had read most of it before I saw this notice. The main problems I see with the article are structure and level of detail. This is an article about a controversial film. It should be structured similarly to other film articles. I note Triumph of the Will is about a 1930s controverial documentary film and a FA (although an older FA with fewer references than would be required today), and would be a useful model.
This article does not follow the recommended structure of Wikipedia:WikiProject Films: When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. I note Sicko is a recent controversial documentary film, which although only B class, follows this much more logical and useful structure.
Finally, I think a brief plot summary and cast list would summarize much of the information precisely, then the various controversies could be addressed. As it is there is a real mish-mash with a bit of plot, film criticism, the rebuttals, the counter-arguments to the rebuttals, and then some more plot and it starts all over. I imagine streamlining the structure would avoid much of the repetition and pare it down some. I also think some of the details are unnecessary and repetitive - how many examples are needed for some of these points? Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
PS My understanding of Slgrandson's comment was that the film is coming out on DVD (delayed with the lawsuit) and the hope was to get this to FA as a resource when it is widely available on DVD.
Brianboulton comments: I thank Ruhrfisch for that clarification, though it still seems strange that the article's editors are uninvolved in the peer review request. However, mine not to reason why, I suppose.
Brianboulton ( talk) 21:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I've developed this article from a Stub to much more than that in the recent past. Having done so, I was hoping to seek a peer-review from fresh pair of eyes of more experienced editors. Mspraveen ( talk) 18:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Having greatly expanded the article for Boarding Gate, I feel that it could use peer review for style and layout by users more familiar with the coding and stylistic manual of Wikipedia (I try). Honestly, I believe that the content is better than start-class, but clearly it needs reviewing by the community before it really deserves a re-assessment. Kabuki dreams ( talk) 17:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I created this article from scratch and would like to know how to improve it from its current condition to reach
GA-status. Thank you for you help. –
Dream out loud (
talk)
23:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
dihydrogen monoxide comments
Not certain how useful this might be, but here's another source from one of the camera operators. Let me know if you need any technical jargon "translated". Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 17:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Pather Panchali, an Indian film directed by Satyajit Ray, is one of the Core articles in wikiproject film. The article has undergone substantial improvement lately. I request you to kindly give inputs for further development, with a view to a FAC in near future.
There are some points in the article which I shall address soon. For example, the English spelling of one of the main characters (Sarbajaya) is spelled differently in different places in the article. Please also see if the plot sounds ok. Thanks a lot. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 12:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The lead section is long enough, but then I am of the opinion that it could be expanded even more. The Plot section does not carry any inline citations. Complex confusing terms could be avoided. Apart from these minor shortcomings, the article is pretty fine. - Ravichandar My coffee shop 15:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Cheers! Mspraveen ( talk) 16:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. It's that darn real life. Haven't had much time to go through article thoroughly yet. But, at the first look I found some areas of improvement for sure.
I'll take another look day after tomorrow. Cheers. Aditya( talk • contribs) 18:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks guys for the excellent reviews. We've tried to address many concerns. Some (most notably the Plot section) has not been worked on yet. Here the updates:
A general concern in the reviews has been too many (small) subsections. Now, the structure has been changed. "Influences" follows "Cast" (which, in turn, has now been introduced per Blofeld's suggestion). "Post-production: soundtrack" (IMO, the name of this new subsection can be just "Soundtrack" instead of "Production: soundtrack". Views??) is now a new subsection under "Production". DVD information is within "Release and response". The earlier sections of "Sequels—The Apu trilogy" and "Legacy" have been merged under "legacy". Earlier sections of "Reception" and "Awards" have been merged into "Critical reception and awards".
Now, coming to specific reviews by individual users:
Blofeld's comments
Ravichander's comments
Inline citation in plots, though I am not 100% sure, is usually not needed, unless there is some commentary like sentence. Indeed, the plot, in its present form, have some commentaries. Will add citations. Regarding complex terms, please help finding them (often the main contributors become blind to such things, so please help).
Mspraveen's comments
Aditya's comment
Thanks a lot to everybody. Please continue the review. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 08:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
one more comment. Mspraveen asked why only Govt of west bengal is mentioned as producer, when MOMA also helped with money. That is because the credit title of the film mentions only Govt of West bengal as the producer, and not MOMA. That MOMA also helped with money is referenced from Robinson's Inner Eye book (details of the book available in bibliography section of the article). Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 09:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
More update Tried to condense and shorten the plot. Please have a look. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 18:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There's more to be said, but I have to get some sleep, so let's see how these are handled for now. Keep up the hard work - it's definitely heading in the right direction, and the references are pleasantly strong and fluff-free. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 09:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Girolamo Many of your points have been addressed. However, the first four concerns are yet to be addressed.
So, the word "usually" won't be there. And other alternate translations will also be mentioned. Is that fine? (the works will be done tomorrow). Thanks a lot. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 17:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
More
Okay, more to follow later - good luck with this for now! Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 20:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Part 3
Let's start with some old issues still not resolved:
New observations:
Overall, though, it's definitely coming along. Look forward to seeing this in A-Class review and FAC. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 21:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I believe that this Portal could be worthy of the featured portal rank but there are still a few things that may need changing. In 2006, this portal was put up for featured portal but was rejected because it was too new. Two years later, I believe it has a chance ...
Thanks, hopefully this should get moving on pretty well, pretty quickly, SkE ( talk) 16:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of the failed Feature Article Nomination. The other editors stated that the prose was fairly bad and that I had an egotistical attitude towards other editors. Any suggestions would be nice.
Thanks, Wildroot ( talk) 17:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I have worked on this article from the very beginning and feel that it may be eligible for good article status. My goal is to eventually make this into a featured article someday. I've made sure that every fact in the article is properly cited, and the only expansions really needed right now are to the synopsis section (I have no idea what to do with it) and the reception section. Any input I can get would be really appreciated. – Dream out loud ( talk) 15:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Seeking to take the article about this 1987 film to Featured status. It's already been through one WikiProject Peer Review in June 2007, and is at Good Article status, but an FA nomination a month ago did not succeed. I've done some more cleanup since then, and am seeking another Peer Review before trying again for FA. Thanks, El on ka 12:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
OK - prosewise it isn't too bad. I picked up a few things an no doubt others will pick up more. WRT comprehensiveness, it looks pretty good, I wonder if there isn't some other scholarly critique which discusses its success and/or place in culture in a bit more detail. It would be fantastic to add something if there was something about. The last section Other versions' is a bit stubby, a few more words on each item may make it run a bit better. Anyway, not too far away. Must see this one day I guess....Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 19:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
That's all from me. Any comments, questions, or if you need a re-review or follow-up, let me know. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Review by User:Bzuk
After saying all that, the article is a comprehensive, well-written and eminently interesting article. FWiW, all my comments hinge on minor aspects of the writing and referencing. 15:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The prose is much better than in the last FAC. This shows especially in the plot section. I don't see any major obstacles for a successful future FAC, but I can still suggest a few minor tweaks. Ignore them where you think they are bad, in which case you don't have to explain yourself. I like working in batches, so the following isn't everything; if this peer review closes earlier than I can complete my review, I'll give you my notes in other ways. This review includes everything up until (including) the "Pre-production" section
– sgeureka t• c 13:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
(continued) As was suggested, I made some quick improvement attemps myself, which should be doublechecked for grammar (just in case). I also have some more notes (below) where I rather not touch the article myself at the moment.
– sgeureka t• c 20:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Just some quick thoughts. Much better than before.
(1) The coming of age aspect should reference Bildungsroman as a matter of simple professionalism, given this is the generally accepted academic term (descriptor), as monomyth is more of a Campbellism (i.e. analytic).
(2) Still marred by overly trivial descriptions especially in production and filming sections.
(3) prose: still weak & really needs some work for FA:
Ok, so instead of just shooting my mouth off, here's what I mean in this regard: Consider this paragraph (selected randomly):
Director Ardolino was adamant that they choose dancers who could also act, as he did not want to use the "stand-in" method that had been used with the 1983 Flashdance. For the female lead of Frances "Baby" Houseman, Bergstein chose the 26-year-old Jennifer Grey, daughter of the Oscar-winning actor and dancer Joel Grey of the 1972 film Cabaret. They then sought a male lead, initially considering 20-year-old Billy Zane, who had the visual look desired, but initial dancing tests when he was partnered with Grey did not meet expectations. The next choice was 34-year-old Patrick Swayze, who had been noticed for his roles in The Outsiders and Red Dawn, in which he had co-starred with Grey. Swayze was a seasoned dancer, with experience from the Joffrey Ballet. The producers liked him, but Swayze's agent was against the idea. However, Swayze read the script, liked the multi-leveled character of Johnny, and took the part anyway. Grey was not happy about the choice, as she and Swayze had had difficulty getting along on Red Dawn. However, the two of them met, worked things out, and when they did their dancing screen test, the chemistry between them was obvious. Bergstein described it as "breathtaking".[9]
I would rewrite this as:
Director Ardolino, after his experience using stand-ins with Flashdance in 1983, was adamant actors be chosen who could dance. This requirement disqualified 20-year old Billy Zane, who otherwise had the desired "look." Producers then considered 34-year old Patrick Swayze, a seasoned dancer after his lengthy experience with the Joffrey Ballet. Against the advice of his agent, Swayze liked the character and took the role. Although he and Jennifer Grey had previously clashed on the set of Red Dawn, they met and resolved their differences. By the time they took their screen test, the chemistry between them was "breathtaking" according to Bergstein.[9]
(I removed completely the sentence about Jennifer Grey, which is redundant wrt her starring in the film, says nothing about her dancing and is a pointless non-sequitur in terms of the minibio. If you have something about her ability to dance, place it here. Otherwise, kill it.)
Pretty much every paragraph needs to be tightened up like that; crisper prose, a more judicious eye for the relevant detail and less unnecessary guff that distracts from the main points.
(4) Finally, last time I objected to unsourced claims about the legacy, but I think that is one of the most interesting things about this (chick)flick ;). Is there no material that can be used to flesh out its legacy? After reining in the prose and trivia of the various production sections, there should be plenty of space. As it stands, we have a sort of laundry list of stuff; since this has been the subject of academic treatment, however, it suggests there may be something more substantive to say about it.
Ok, sorry if I am being too direct, but there's a strong potential here. Just needs some more work. Damn now I have time of my life stuck in my head. Damn you Dirty Dancing! Eusebeus ( talk) 16:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I saw this movie about 2 weeks ago or so and it intoxicated me. So I did my best to read everything I could and added to the article accordingly. I would like to know its potential for FA, since I've not written a film article to this extent before. I would like to know what to add, remove, alter, clean up, and clarify. Your assistance is appreciated, and thank you for reading the article. -- Moni3 ( talk) 12:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I've cleaned up this article considerably and aside from beefing up the Lead paragraph, would like any comments or suggestions towards promoting this article to GA status. Thanks! -- J.D. ( talk) 20:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Bzuk The article is generally well-written, comprehensive and interesting to the reader. The following refer to minor issues:
For now... Bzuk ( talk) 15:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC).
![]() | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for review as i've done a lot of research for it and I can't think of anything more to add. I'd like to give it one quick peer review again before nominating for a GA. Cheers! Andrzejbanas ( talk) 19:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I've put a lot of work into this article and cleaned up considerably. I would greatly appreciate any comments or suggestions that would help in promoting it up to GA status. Thanks!-- J.D. ( talk) 19:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment by User:Bzuk Generally well-written and interesting account. I would address only one minor concern and that is inconsistencies in using ISO and m-d-y formats. More to come later. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 17:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC).
I'm nominating this article for a peer review because all three POTC films are Good Articles, and since Dead Man's Chest is probably the most developed one, it would be nice to know what could be improved before nominating it for the FA. Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 23:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This article recently achieved a GA status without any objections whatsoever. I've thoroughly developed the article in its comprehensiveness and breadth. I wish to bring it up further on quality and to achieve this, I request reviewers to please comment on what areas to focus upon. Thanks for your time. Cheers! Mspraveen ( talk) 16:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a famous, often quoted, highly regarded film that I've been working on in the hopes of bumping it up to GA status. Any comments and/or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. -- J.D. ( talk) 21:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment by User:Bzuk Since the film in question is a landmark film, are there any textual references that can be added to the sources used? Otherwise, as in J.D.'s other work, a finely written piece, that sets a neutral tone and has adequate if not overwhelming reference sources. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 18:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC).
This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's a Good Article.
Thanks, Ultra! 08:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Enough from me. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
...for now, Bzuk ( talk) 17:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC).
This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's a Good Article.
Thanks, Ultra! 08:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
That's it from me. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
That's enough changes for now but work is needed. Bzuk ( talk) 17:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC).
This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's a Good Article.
Thanks,
Ultra!
08:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
That should help a bit on the way to something like FAC... The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting article, generally well written but major issues with referencing formats, not only use of bare urls, lack of author notes, mix of dating styles. Contact me for assistance. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 18:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC).
This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's a Good Article.
Thanks, Ultra! 08:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
A few pointers - it's a good starting point for FA though...
That's it for now. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
That's it for now, generally well-written but minor revisions are required. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 23:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC).
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a comprehensive and thoroughly researched film article that is written in a neutral but encyclopedia manner.
Thanks,
Bzuk (
talk)
14:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC).
SGGH I suggest:
The remainder seems fine, good stuff. Hope you find these comments helpful. SGGH speak! 12:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to submit this article for GA, and possibly FA.
Thanks, Starczamora ( talk) 09:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: (after edit conflict) Overall interesting and well done - I think it is pretty close to GA status. Some suggestions:
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have finished writing this article and will soon take it to GAN. Any and all feedback on how I can improve the article is appreciated.
Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 07:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
An interesting read. Hope to see a FAC in the not-too-distant future. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 09:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Very nicely done. I'll be incredibly picky here and you can ignore anything that's off base.
Overall, very well done. I told you I'd be incredibly picky :-P Definitely let me know if you have questions or want to discuss anything. delldot talk 11:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like lots of other have got here before me. I will try to add something new to the discussion. No particular order or importance on these fixes. Just adding them as I come across them:
Overall, the article is quite good, and I would consider it GA quality in its current state! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 15:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
Thanks,
Vikrant
07:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Overall a well-written, good article that seems close to FA standards. It may help to have a FA model article to follow (with the large number of Bond films, is one FA already?). Here are some comments for improvement:
These are fairly nit-picky, hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
Thanks,
Vikrant
07:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I like what is here, but felt the article still could use some work and additional material to be more complete. Specific suggestions:
Again, I liked what I read, learned some things, and think this is a good effort, but it still has some major improvements needed. Hpe this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have recently re-written this article in its entirety and hope to take it to FAC in due time. It's currently at GAC and any comments would be appreciated. Thanks,
M3tal H3ad (
talk)
11:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
"Over 3000 people were auditioned for roles in the United Kingdom, although many were rejected." - Do you mean that the 3000 people were UK residents, or that auditions were held in the UK and actors of whichever nationality auditioned in that country? LuciferMorgan ( talk) 22:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I wanted to comment as this had not received much feedback. I read the article and was quite impressed, but here are a few suggestions for improvement. I like the current lead, but according to WP:LEAD it should be four paragraphs (for the length of the article). My rule of thumb is that if it is a section or subsection in the article, it should at least be mentioned in the lead. I also noticed there are a number of units which are given as one system only (feet, tonnes) and should really be in both metric and english untis per the MOS. My last question concerns the references - if you are going for FAC (and I think it is quite close as it is), then some of the references do not seem to meet the requirements of WP:CITE. Specifically there are a series of refs which are just a cryptic title: i.e. Ref 7 "57 Years Later - Continuing the story", also refs 12 - 15 and 18. My guess is that these are referring to chapters in a DVD on the making of the film, but that needs to be made much more explicit. Hope this helps - I don't have much more to say becasue I think it is very good already, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I effectively re-wrote the article, and am pleased with its current state. I'd like to think it could make it to A-class or GA-level, but I haven't worked on a film article to this extent before and would like this WikiProject's input on what I've done and any improvements I can make. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd also recommend looking at several of our FA-class articles to get an idea for how a featured article on a film is structured and composed. Look forward to seeing the article come along! Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 00:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Before I'd even seen your reply here, I decided that as long as all the information in the infobox was used and duly cited elsewhere, it didn't need to clutter the infobox itself. Details such as the music, editor, distributor, and running time aren't well integrable into the prose such as it stands; but in line with the policy on verifiability I want all of that information cited/sourced (not delving into the reliability of the sources under discussion just now). If not citing those factoids in-line, how would you recommend I be able to associate given information with its reliable source?
An aside, I realize these peer review pages are for these purposes, but why do they take place on a separate page as opposed to the articles' talk pages? That would keep discussion with the article where it can arguably belong, and to keep the WikiProject appraised either the discussions could be transcluded here, or tagging the article for PR could categorize it in some notifying fashion? Just curious. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Currently the List of disaster films is being updated and heavily edited. I would like to know how the list is looking, and if it is more useful than it had been prior to my edits.
prior to my edits my latest edit
I used the article on disaster for the headings on this list. - LA @ 21:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This was a highly regarded film when it was released in 1999, dividing critics and is an important milestone in Paul Thomas Anderson's career. I have added a considerable amount of production and reception info to this article and would like any other suggestions or comments to improve it to GA status. Thanks. -- J.D. ( talk) 17:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a hard film to write an article about, and also a difficult article to review because of the complexities of the film, but I'll give it a go.
Overview
Cast
Reception
Themes
DVD
External links
Anyway, good work so far - I hope this helps. -- Beloved Freak 12:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me a pretty good article already... I've nominated it for GA, just wanted to see if anyone else would like to comment. Thanks, Mdiamante ( talk) 01:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC).
This film has quite a dedicated cult following and is a highly regarded comedy. I've cleaned up this article considerably but it could definitely use some more work and I would love to have any comments or suggestions that could help raise this article to GA status. -- J.D. ( talk) 17:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I've just got the DVD of this monumental classic--and hopefully I'm not alone when I know this is actually turning 70...this Friday! Sorry if I can't get back to quicken this up any further till the New Year, but suggestions from the WP community are welcome. -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 19:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
A lot of work has gone into this article to improve it with the hopes of achieving a GA status soon. Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. -- J.D. ( talk) 08:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Good work so far, J.D. Here are a few thoughts:
Infobox
Images
Lead
Plot
Cast and characters
Production
Soundtrack
Reception
That's all I can think of for now, hope it helps... -- Beloved Freak 19:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks to be close to FA. But apparently I'm not allowed to nominate so I'm giving it a PR instead. Buc ( talk) 11:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The lead looks fine. It's longer than a lot of existing FA. Buc ( talk) 18:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay usual PR stuff, its a GA, so I'm aiming for FA at some point in the future (no matter how far it is). Any comments are welcomed: grammer, glaring errors, info that should be included, sourcing etc. Also if you do know of any good info that for some reason isn't included then that's great as well. Thanks. Gran 2 18:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This WikiProject Film page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. | ![]() |
I want this article to be moved to B-class. Please share your review comments. "Legolas" ( talk) 12:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
To my eyes, this article compares favorably to a number of GA-quality film articles. I'm unfamiliar with the ins and outs of entertainment-related articles, and would appreciate some feedback before I go through the GA process. Nyctonymous 00:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've expanded it a great deal over the last few days and believe that it is close to if not at
good article status. I would appreciate review comments with an eye to leading to a successful GA nomination.
Otto4711 (
talk)
21:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments Great work on this article! I have a few suggestions; some are pretty nitty-gritty but keep in mind I'm not a film person but a literary person.
I hope my notes have helped. Feel free to ignore ones you deem irrelevant. I think it has a good chance of passing GA status, especially once the long sentences are addressed. Good luck! -- Midnightdreary ( talk) 14:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because alot of work has gone into this article within the past several months and I am going to make my final attempt at getting this article to FAC status. Feel free to provide any suggestions that you may have and I will address them in a timely manner. I will leave the review open until the other major contributing editors that have helped me with this project all agree that it is ready for a FAC nomination.
Thanks, DrNegative ( talk) 17:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement, looking at from an FAC viewpoint.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been cleaned up and polished, and I just want to know what everyone thinks of it after all this time it has been worked on.
Thanks, Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 02:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to know if my contributions have been of any benefit.
Thanks, Kilnburn ( talk) 21:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Images:
Layout and structure:
Overall, I think most of the content is there. But it needs major massaging and some reorganization. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 19:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a former FA candidate and I would like to see it reach FA status as soon as possible. I know there is some work to be done on the article, such as expanding the legacy section, reception and possibly creation of the film, as it's one of the most important horror films of all time. I am also open to any other suggestions for improving this article.
Thanks, EclipseSSD ( talk) 17:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I started working on this article when it looked like this. Over the last five months and practically singlehandedly, I've expanded it to what it is today. I've yet to write a GA or an FA and I've decided to make this my first one of those but I would appreciate some help from editors more qualified than myself to tell me what looks good and what needs improvement. In its current state, I believe the article qualifies as a class B but, again, input would be appreciated.
Thank you! SWik78 ( talk • contribs) 16:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks like you are off to a great start! Comparing the revisions, I appreciate the removal of the taglines, the expansion of the Plot section, and the addition of three substantial sections. With that said, here are some recommendations to continue improving the article:
If you would like help with finding resources, just let me know. I'd be happy to do so. I have a few places I can look. :) — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 22:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a former FA candidate and I would like to see it reach FA status as soon as possible. I know there is some work to be done on the article, such as expanding the legacy section, reception and possibly creation of the film, as it's one of the most important horror films of all time. I am also open to any other suggestions for improving this article.
Thanks, -- EclipseSSD ( talk) 17:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get input before taking it to FAC in the future. This is only the second film article I've extensively worked on, so if someone sees something missing, tell me. I know the 'cast' section hasn't been completed, but if people could look over my prose that would be great too.
Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 15:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I found this to be generally quite well done, although I agree there are some places where the language could be smoothed a bit, as well as some places in Cast that need to expanded (Uhura). Here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The article discusses Spock's death a lot and I think it should go in the lead, considering it is the start of the story arc ending in The Voyage Home? I know we maintain a fine line between courtesy and common sense on the readers' part, but what's the use of not mentioning such a famous cliffhanger? Alientraveller ( talk) 15:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller ( talk) 18:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has the potential to be a FA, but I think we could use some advice on clearing up defects in the article before proceeding with FAC.
Thanks,
Wehwalt (
talk)
23:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Comments from [[ SriMesh | talk 01:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)]]
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
I am requesting this peer review in order to solicit opinions from the project about the cast section of the article, the content of which has been the subject of a dispute for some time now. I feel that the current "in-world" descriptions of the characters is inappropriate, unencyclopaedic, and misleading. I would like to hear the opinion of people involved in editing other film articles so that this matter can be settled. In general, this is a decent film article, but is in need of polishing. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 03:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I been cleaning up this article quite a bit and feel that it is at least ready to be upgraded to B status but would like any comments, suggestions and/or help to upgrade this popular cult comedy to GA status. Thanks.-- J.D. ( talk) 19:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need other feedback to get this to FA-status. I still need to add Tim Burton's DVD audio commentary, but I'm open to other suggestions. More importantly I probably should expand the lead section.
Thanks, Wildroot ( talk) 00:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I have put a lot of work into cleaning up this article and beefing up the content in order to get it to GA status. The lead paragraph obviously needs work and the plot summary needs to be trimmed considerable. Any help and/or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.-- J.D. ( talk) 17:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for review as i've done a lot of research for it and I can't think of anything more to add. I'd like to give it one quick peer review again before nominating for a GA. Cheers! Andrzejbanas ( talk) 19:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone significant improvement in the last week or so, and I'd like to get feedback on how I can further improve it before I send it up for GA, and possible later FA.
Thanks, -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 18:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise GA material. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Expanded plot, reorganized, added links. Thank you, Shir-El too 14:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it should become a
good article again and I would like to know what else needs to be done to achieve that goal.
Thanks, CyberGhostface ( talk) 14:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
In the plot section maybe it's not best to say "obviously inspired" even if it is, because that's kind of a odd way to put it. It sounds too unfactual. If you want to include it, perhaps it's best to state that strongly resembles it.
In the infobox, the flags should be gone as WP:FilmRelease suggests against it. I'll change them myself!
Try to put ciations that come around commas after the comma to increase readability.
The award section in release is a bit list-y. Perhaps it could be in a chart or expanded? These awards don't suggest what year they were given out or what's the notability of them.
The musical and differences form the book section need citations but are also pretty well integrated otherwise.
Good job overall! Andrzejbanas ( talk) 19:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've just created this article and I would like to take it all the way to FA status. But let's concentrating on working on GA first :)
Any suggestions or comments you have are much appreciated.
Thanks, Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 08:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Will do Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive advice on how to further improve it before nominating it for FA. Criticism and comments would be most appreciated.
Thanks, — Mizu onna sango15 Hello! 05:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC).
Try adding info from the special features of the 2-disc special edition. If you have it. If not maybe I might help. I worked a little bit on that article around early-December (added some of those internet links alongside User:Alientraveller and User:Erik. You could get their opinion as well. — Wildroot ( talk) 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention the plot section could be trimmed down a lot. There's also Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street ( ISBN 1845767047) that includes some in-depth making of the movie. More info might there. Could list that in a "Further Reading" section.— Wildroot ( talk) 03:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I brought the plot section to six paragraphs. Not really finished yet. Didn't take too long. I'm somewhat busy trying to get Tim Burton's Batman to FA status. Two Burton films to FA status in the same month. That would be amazing.— Wildroot ( talk) 01:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I brought the plot down to four paragraphs, but you guys might one to check because I might have made an itty bitty mistake. — Wildroot ( talk) 06:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Seems pretty good to me. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Bzuk comments Since I have had the article on my watchlist for awhile, I have noted a lot of improvements. Some minor points to consider:
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 03:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC).
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the quality of this article has recently significantly improved and the article was previously assessed as stub class. The article appears to meet the criteria for a B article, however I would appreciate a second opinion.
Thanks, UniversalBread ( talk) 20:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Done
Done
Done
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 0Nl, use 0 Nl, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 0 Nl.
[?]Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
UniversalBread ( talk) 21:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see other editors feedback to get this article to FA status. I've worked hard on this article (obviously) and have brought it up to GA status. I've used up all links I could find (books, magazine articles, websites, etc.) to get great info for Batman. I have very few things to look at (such as DVD special features). Anyway I need your opinion. Should I add any "Themes" or pictures or what?
Thanks, Wildroot ( talk) 20:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments-Good article (obviously). Here's how you can make it an FA (very brief and shallow runthrough):
I'll have more comments later. Dabomb87 ( talk) 02:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing. I tend to include the ISBN of a book/novel/comic book if it doesn't have its own Wikipedia article. I don't really know why I do that. Producer Michael Uslan made that comment of Batman's popularity waning in the late 1970s. I will get to work on the Legacy section. — Wildroot ( talk) 05:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 19:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Bzuk Comments Overall, the article reads well, and my comments are to address mainly minor points:
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 04:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC).
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
This film is a much beloved cult film and I've put a lot of work updating the Production and Reception sections with content and citations and tried to remove unsourced sections but I would like any more suggestions, comments or contributions to help upgrade this film to GA status.-- J.D. ( talk) 16:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Some initial thoughts:
These are just the recommended broad strokes for the article. There may be some copy-editing needed. I can help with that if you wish, and also possibly see about other available references. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 16:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this article has now reached 'Start' class, but I'd like to know where to go from here. Specifically, I'ld like to know where to get information about this specific film from. I've searched in Google and all I get are reviews. I've seen other pages, like Jaws, etc. and their references are articles written at the time of the movie's release, giving information. I don't know where to find that kind of stuff about a film like this that's not that well known and released 17 years ago. Help appreciated. - Dalta ( talk) 18:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to make this article a GA (and, in the long run, a FA). Some other editors and I have edited it extensively, and would like some input as to whether it will be ready for a GA nomination anytime soon, and what we need to do to prepare it for GA-status. Any input or suggestions would be much appreciated. Thanks! SunDragon34 ( talk) 04:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
(Of course, I would love to know anything we could do to prepare it for FA, as well.) SunDragon34 ( talk) 04:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I am also interested in knowing how we can expand the article in the places it needs work on. (I already know the history section needs work.) SunDragon34 ( talk) 04:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
To get this to GA, then FA, would be a great achievement, with this probably being one of the most important films ever made.
All in all, the main thing the article needs is expansion. If you don't already have it, you should consider getting the special edition DVD, which I'm sure will contain plenty of information. Also, there are bound to have been multiple books and articles written about the film, so that might be worth looking into. Good luck, Gran 2 08:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I might be echoing Gran here and there, but when it comes to comments and suggestions, I go by the phrase "the more the merrier".
So, overall, the medicine this page needs is referencing and expansion. One last echo—the special edition DVD is always an indispensible source for an film's article. The commentaries alone may end up referencing Production. Best of luck, Cliff smith ( talk) 18:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
That's all for now, on a quick perusal. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 02:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC).
Good luck, Dalejenkins | 13:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been up for a "featured article" nomination several times and has been denied. I have extensive knowledge of this movie and its production and I would like to help this article achieve its goal of a "featured article".
I have been looking over the Talk page and I noticed many submissions and clean-up has been done since this article was last nominated.
What I really want is more input from other editors as to how we can improve this article. I believe it really stands out, but Im sure it could use some minor work to top it off.
Let us know what you think guys.
Thanks,
DrNegative (
talk)
07:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem on the copyedit—I'm just finishing up a couple other projects. I should be able to get started right away, but you probably won't see any edits until tomorrow. Today will just be analysis and note-taking. I look forward to seeing The Lion King pass its FA review. -- AnnaFrance (talk — blunders) 14:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
That's enough to work with for now.
If these problems are all dealt with I may post more suggestions to improve the article.
If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.
Thanks. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 03:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)That's it. I hope these suggestions were helpful. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 15:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a good article. I need to at least get this up to FA status. It is one of the best articles on Wikipedia in my opinion. Any feedback on how to improve it shall be very much appreciated.
Thanks,
Greg
Jones
II
23:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
That's a start - hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd really like to work on bringing this article up to
Good Article status. A little work has been done already, but any suggestions, ideas, comments, and advice would really be appreciated. Thanks,
Cinemaniac (
talk •
contribs •
critique)
01:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Who doesn't love Bugs? This is a great article to want to bring to GA, so I definitely applaud your effort. Some ideas/suggestions:
I hope this helped! If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact me via my talk page. María ( habla con migo) 13:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks more than simply a "start" article, after all, me and some other random users have been adding on to it. Looking for review from film project editors on how to potentially decrease the amount of plot spoilers in summary and characters sections, as well as anything else you want to comment on or have problems with about the article. Also needs somebody to review the "criteria met" parameters in the film project banner. chant essy 13:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Overall, more references and more info on the film's development and its critical reception are needed. Cliff smith ( talk) 20:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Somanytictoc ( talk) 21:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been working hard on improving this article as I feel it is an important film. I would welcome any suggestions, comments and help to improve it in the hopes of getting it promoted to GA status. Right now, the obvious improvements are editing down the plot summary, improving the lead paragraph and I would like to add a Legacy section.-- J.D. ( talk) 22:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Other than that, it's shaping up alright. Cliff smith ( talk) 16:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Though this article has become gotten quite a bit larger since its time as a stub, I'd like ideas on how it can be improved, particularly on the lead and production (Where I've had trouble finding more information). If someone could look through the entire article as well and give advice, that would be appreciated. Yojimbo501 ( talk) 19:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Each bullet point denotes a section but I veer off into generalities occasionally.
Anyway, hopefully my comments will be of some help. It's definitely coming along. Good work. Doctor Sunshine talk 08:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
One more thing is that the Variety review is for 1961. Perhaps the reviewer spoke Japanese? But, since we can't have contradicting information, I'll remove mention of the American release date. Yojimbo501 ( talk) 21:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC) I've also recently added a Analysis section, which I thought ran too short (though there is bound to be something else you showed me which can go in). So, I added something from the Reception section. Looking at some of the Reception section, I realized that a lot of it wasn't actually made of reviews, but that it would probably fit well into the Analysis section. Do you think there are any particular parts which would fit well into the Analysis section? The reception has been called a bit long, so I'm asking you so the sections remain balanced. Yojimbo501 ( talk) 23:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I also just moved quite a bit of stuff from the Reception section into the Analysis section. Yojimbo501 ( talk) 04:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a Good Article and I want to get it up to Featured status. The previous peer review can be found
here. Any feedback and suggestions on improving it for FA will be very much appreciated
Thanks, Greg Jones II 20:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Sorry to hear that fingers are broken across the nation today. Try here: http://www.timeout.com/film/news/488/ to see that the interview is fully covered by numerous media. That some editor chose one site covering it over another shouldn't impugn the source automatically, AGF when an apparently sourced item appears, and the content matches the source. Do some legwork, google a bit. '2008 Nolan Dorchester Batman' found me a number of websites covering the interview. ThuranX ( talk) 20:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see it get to at the least Good Article status, and preferably FA at last. There was a previous Peer Review, but that was all the way back in 2006 and the article is much improved. Thanks,
rootology (
T)
18:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Golden Film is a comprehensive article, that treats its topic without going into unnecessary details. It follows Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability and style. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know which improvements the article needs in order to pass as featured article. –
Ilse
@
13:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Article is generally well done but the prose is a bit awkward and could use a copy edit. Here are some suggestions for improvement:
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
This article shows much information that I think should be reviewed so that I can understand how close the article is to an award. -- Tj999 ( talk) 04:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
J.D. comments: The first thing that I noticed is that there is a wealth of production information but only one citation in the entire Production section despite several references listed further down the article. Quotes should be cited as should every paragraph.-- J.D. ( talk) 22:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so the article should have some references. -- Tj999 ( talk) 17:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
O.K., so as a Christian I'm against the subject of this film, but I'm bringing this to attention because of its 112K page size and 170 refs (as of typing).
This will look good as an FA when it arrives on DVD; for now, our focus is to simplfy it down to a manageable ±55K.
Thanks, Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 19:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: for clarification. The peer review request is made by a user who, as far as I can see, has played no part in the editing. I am confused by the wording of the request: "...so as a Christian I'm against the subject of this film", and I don't understand the sentence: "This will look good as an FA when it arrives on DVD; for now, our focus is to simplfy it down to a manageable ±55K". Who is the "our" in "our focus"? My review is aimed at effecting general improvements to the article, rather than assisting a particular agenda. Before I offer my comments, would Sigrandson care to amplify on whose behalf he/she is acting? Brianboulton ( talk) 16:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Brief Ruhrfisch comment: Thanks to Brianboulton for agreeing to review this. I had read most of it before I saw this notice. The main problems I see with the article are structure and level of detail. This is an article about a controversial film. It should be structured similarly to other film articles. I note Triumph of the Will is about a 1930s controverial documentary film and a FA (although an older FA with fewer references than would be required today), and would be a useful model.
This article does not follow the recommended structure of Wikipedia:WikiProject Films: When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. I note Sicko is a recent controversial documentary film, which although only B class, follows this much more logical and useful structure.
Finally, I think a brief plot summary and cast list would summarize much of the information precisely, then the various controversies could be addressed. As it is there is a real mish-mash with a bit of plot, film criticism, the rebuttals, the counter-arguments to the rebuttals, and then some more plot and it starts all over. I imagine streamlining the structure would avoid much of the repetition and pare it down some. I also think some of the details are unnecessary and repetitive - how many examples are needed for some of these points? Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
PS My understanding of Slgrandson's comment was that the film is coming out on DVD (delayed with the lawsuit) and the hope was to get this to FA as a resource when it is widely available on DVD.
Brianboulton comments: I thank Ruhrfisch for that clarification, though it still seems strange that the article's editors are uninvolved in the peer review request. However, mine not to reason why, I suppose.
Brianboulton ( talk) 21:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I've developed this article from a Stub to much more than that in the recent past. Having done so, I was hoping to seek a peer-review from fresh pair of eyes of more experienced editors. Mspraveen ( talk) 18:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Having greatly expanded the article for Boarding Gate, I feel that it could use peer review for style and layout by users more familiar with the coding and stylistic manual of Wikipedia (I try). Honestly, I believe that the content is better than start-class, but clearly it needs reviewing by the community before it really deserves a re-assessment. Kabuki dreams ( talk) 17:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I created this article from scratch and would like to know how to improve it from its current condition to reach
GA-status. Thank you for you help. –
Dream out loud (
talk)
23:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
dihydrogen monoxide comments
Not certain how useful this might be, but here's another source from one of the camera operators. Let me know if you need any technical jargon "translated". Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 17:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Pather Panchali, an Indian film directed by Satyajit Ray, is one of the Core articles in wikiproject film. The article has undergone substantial improvement lately. I request you to kindly give inputs for further development, with a view to a FAC in near future.
There are some points in the article which I shall address soon. For example, the English spelling of one of the main characters (Sarbajaya) is spelled differently in different places in the article. Please also see if the plot sounds ok. Thanks a lot. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 12:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The lead section is long enough, but then I am of the opinion that it could be expanded even more. The Plot section does not carry any inline citations. Complex confusing terms could be avoided. Apart from these minor shortcomings, the article is pretty fine. - Ravichandar My coffee shop 15:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Cheers! Mspraveen ( talk) 16:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. It's that darn real life. Haven't had much time to go through article thoroughly yet. But, at the first look I found some areas of improvement for sure.
I'll take another look day after tomorrow. Cheers. Aditya( talk • contribs) 18:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks guys for the excellent reviews. We've tried to address many concerns. Some (most notably the Plot section) has not been worked on yet. Here the updates:
A general concern in the reviews has been too many (small) subsections. Now, the structure has been changed. "Influences" follows "Cast" (which, in turn, has now been introduced per Blofeld's suggestion). "Post-production: soundtrack" (IMO, the name of this new subsection can be just "Soundtrack" instead of "Production: soundtrack". Views??) is now a new subsection under "Production". DVD information is within "Release and response". The earlier sections of "Sequels—The Apu trilogy" and "Legacy" have been merged under "legacy". Earlier sections of "Reception" and "Awards" have been merged into "Critical reception and awards".
Now, coming to specific reviews by individual users:
Blofeld's comments
Ravichander's comments
Inline citation in plots, though I am not 100% sure, is usually not needed, unless there is some commentary like sentence. Indeed, the plot, in its present form, have some commentaries. Will add citations. Regarding complex terms, please help finding them (often the main contributors become blind to such things, so please help).
Mspraveen's comments
Aditya's comment
Thanks a lot to everybody. Please continue the review. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 08:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
one more comment. Mspraveen asked why only Govt of west bengal is mentioned as producer, when MOMA also helped with money. That is because the credit title of the film mentions only Govt of West bengal as the producer, and not MOMA. That MOMA also helped with money is referenced from Robinson's Inner Eye book (details of the book available in bibliography section of the article). Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 09:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
More update Tried to condense and shorten the plot. Please have a look. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 18:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There's more to be said, but I have to get some sleep, so let's see how these are handled for now. Keep up the hard work - it's definitely heading in the right direction, and the references are pleasantly strong and fluff-free. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 09:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Girolamo Many of your points have been addressed. However, the first four concerns are yet to be addressed.
So, the word "usually" won't be there. And other alternate translations will also be mentioned. Is that fine? (the works will be done tomorrow). Thanks a lot. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 17:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
More
Okay, more to follow later - good luck with this for now! Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 20:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Part 3
Let's start with some old issues still not resolved:
New observations:
Overall, though, it's definitely coming along. Look forward to seeing this in A-Class review and FAC. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 21:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I believe that this Portal could be worthy of the featured portal rank but there are still a few things that may need changing. In 2006, this portal was put up for featured portal but was rejected because it was too new. Two years later, I believe it has a chance ...
Thanks, hopefully this should get moving on pretty well, pretty quickly, SkE ( talk) 16:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of the failed Feature Article Nomination. The other editors stated that the prose was fairly bad and that I had an egotistical attitude towards other editors. Any suggestions would be nice.
Thanks, Wildroot ( talk) 17:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I have worked on this article from the very beginning and feel that it may be eligible for good article status. My goal is to eventually make this into a featured article someday. I've made sure that every fact in the article is properly cited, and the only expansions really needed right now are to the synopsis section (I have no idea what to do with it) and the reception section. Any input I can get would be really appreciated. – Dream out loud ( talk) 15:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Seeking to take the article about this 1987 film to Featured status. It's already been through one WikiProject Peer Review in June 2007, and is at Good Article status, but an FA nomination a month ago did not succeed. I've done some more cleanup since then, and am seeking another Peer Review before trying again for FA. Thanks, El on ka 12:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
OK - prosewise it isn't too bad. I picked up a few things an no doubt others will pick up more. WRT comprehensiveness, it looks pretty good, I wonder if there isn't some other scholarly critique which discusses its success and/or place in culture in a bit more detail. It would be fantastic to add something if there was something about. The last section Other versions' is a bit stubby, a few more words on each item may make it run a bit better. Anyway, not too far away. Must see this one day I guess....Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 19:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
That's all from me. Any comments, questions, or if you need a re-review or follow-up, let me know. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Review by User:Bzuk
After saying all that, the article is a comprehensive, well-written and eminently interesting article. FWiW, all my comments hinge on minor aspects of the writing and referencing. 15:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The prose is much better than in the last FAC. This shows especially in the plot section. I don't see any major obstacles for a successful future FAC, but I can still suggest a few minor tweaks. Ignore them where you think they are bad, in which case you don't have to explain yourself. I like working in batches, so the following isn't everything; if this peer review closes earlier than I can complete my review, I'll give you my notes in other ways. This review includes everything up until (including) the "Pre-production" section
– sgeureka t• c 13:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
(continued) As was suggested, I made some quick improvement attemps myself, which should be doublechecked for grammar (just in case). I also have some more notes (below) where I rather not touch the article myself at the moment.
– sgeureka t• c 20:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Just some quick thoughts. Much better than before.
(1) The coming of age aspect should reference Bildungsroman as a matter of simple professionalism, given this is the generally accepted academic term (descriptor), as monomyth is more of a Campbellism (i.e. analytic).
(2) Still marred by overly trivial descriptions especially in production and filming sections.
(3) prose: still weak & really needs some work for FA:
Ok, so instead of just shooting my mouth off, here's what I mean in this regard: Consider this paragraph (selected randomly):
Director Ardolino was adamant that they choose dancers who could also act, as he did not want to use the "stand-in" method that had been used with the 1983 Flashdance. For the female lead of Frances "Baby" Houseman, Bergstein chose the 26-year-old Jennifer Grey, daughter of the Oscar-winning actor and dancer Joel Grey of the 1972 film Cabaret. They then sought a male lead, initially considering 20-year-old Billy Zane, who had the visual look desired, but initial dancing tests when he was partnered with Grey did not meet expectations. The next choice was 34-year-old Patrick Swayze, who had been noticed for his roles in The Outsiders and Red Dawn, in which he had co-starred with Grey. Swayze was a seasoned dancer, with experience from the Joffrey Ballet. The producers liked him, but Swayze's agent was against the idea. However, Swayze read the script, liked the multi-leveled character of Johnny, and took the part anyway. Grey was not happy about the choice, as she and Swayze had had difficulty getting along on Red Dawn. However, the two of them met, worked things out, and when they did their dancing screen test, the chemistry between them was obvious. Bergstein described it as "breathtaking".[9]
I would rewrite this as:
Director Ardolino, after his experience using stand-ins with Flashdance in 1983, was adamant actors be chosen who could dance. This requirement disqualified 20-year old Billy Zane, who otherwise had the desired "look." Producers then considered 34-year old Patrick Swayze, a seasoned dancer after his lengthy experience with the Joffrey Ballet. Against the advice of his agent, Swayze liked the character and took the role. Although he and Jennifer Grey had previously clashed on the set of Red Dawn, they met and resolved their differences. By the time they took their screen test, the chemistry between them was "breathtaking" according to Bergstein.[9]
(I removed completely the sentence about Jennifer Grey, which is redundant wrt her starring in the film, says nothing about her dancing and is a pointless non-sequitur in terms of the minibio. If you have something about her ability to dance, place it here. Otherwise, kill it.)
Pretty much every paragraph needs to be tightened up like that; crisper prose, a more judicious eye for the relevant detail and less unnecessary guff that distracts from the main points.
(4) Finally, last time I objected to unsourced claims about the legacy, but I think that is one of the most interesting things about this (chick)flick ;). Is there no material that can be used to flesh out its legacy? After reining in the prose and trivia of the various production sections, there should be plenty of space. As it stands, we have a sort of laundry list of stuff; since this has been the subject of academic treatment, however, it suggests there may be something more substantive to say about it.
Ok, sorry if I am being too direct, but there's a strong potential here. Just needs some more work. Damn now I have time of my life stuck in my head. Damn you Dirty Dancing! Eusebeus ( talk) 16:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I saw this movie about 2 weeks ago or so and it intoxicated me. So I did my best to read everything I could and added to the article accordingly. I would like to know its potential for FA, since I've not written a film article to this extent before. I would like to know what to add, remove, alter, clean up, and clarify. Your assistance is appreciated, and thank you for reading the article. -- Moni3 ( talk) 12:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I've cleaned up this article considerably and aside from beefing up the Lead paragraph, would like any comments or suggestions towards promoting this article to GA status. Thanks! -- J.D. ( talk) 20:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Bzuk The article is generally well-written, comprehensive and interesting to the reader. The following refer to minor issues:
For now... Bzuk ( talk) 15:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC).
![]() | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for review as i've done a lot of research for it and I can't think of anything more to add. I'd like to give it one quick peer review again before nominating for a GA. Cheers! Andrzejbanas ( talk) 19:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I've put a lot of work into this article and cleaned up considerably. I would greatly appreciate any comments or suggestions that would help in promoting it up to GA status. Thanks!-- J.D. ( talk) 19:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment by User:Bzuk Generally well-written and interesting account. I would address only one minor concern and that is inconsistencies in using ISO and m-d-y formats. More to come later. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 17:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC).
I'm nominating this article for a peer review because all three POTC films are Good Articles, and since Dead Man's Chest is probably the most developed one, it would be nice to know what could be improved before nominating it for the FA. Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 23:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This article recently achieved a GA status without any objections whatsoever. I've thoroughly developed the article in its comprehensiveness and breadth. I wish to bring it up further on quality and to achieve this, I request reviewers to please comment on what areas to focus upon. Thanks for your time. Cheers! Mspraveen ( talk) 16:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a famous, often quoted, highly regarded film that I've been working on in the hopes of bumping it up to GA status. Any comments and/or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. -- J.D. ( talk) 21:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment by User:Bzuk Since the film in question is a landmark film, are there any textual references that can be added to the sources used? Otherwise, as in J.D.'s other work, a finely written piece, that sets a neutral tone and has adequate if not overwhelming reference sources. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 18:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC).
This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's a Good Article.
Thanks, Ultra! 08:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Enough from me. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
...for now, Bzuk ( talk) 17:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC).
This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's a Good Article.
Thanks, Ultra! 08:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
That's it from me. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
That's enough changes for now but work is needed. Bzuk ( talk) 17:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC).
This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's a Good Article.
Thanks,
Ultra!
08:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
That should help a bit on the way to something like FAC... The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting article, generally well written but major issues with referencing formats, not only use of bare urls, lack of author notes, mix of dating styles. Contact me for assistance. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 18:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC).
This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's a Good Article.
Thanks, Ultra! 08:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
A few pointers - it's a good starting point for FA though...
That's it for now. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
That's it for now, generally well-written but minor revisions are required. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 23:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC).
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a comprehensive and thoroughly researched film article that is written in a neutral but encyclopedia manner.
Thanks,
Bzuk (
talk)
14:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC).
SGGH I suggest:
The remainder seems fine, good stuff. Hope you find these comments helpful. SGGH speak! 12:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to submit this article for GA, and possibly FA.
Thanks, Starczamora ( talk) 09:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: (after edit conflict) Overall interesting and well done - I think it is pretty close to GA status. Some suggestions:
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have finished writing this article and will soon take it to GAN. Any and all feedback on how I can improve the article is appreciated.
Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 07:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
An interesting read. Hope to see a FAC in the not-too-distant future. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 09:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Very nicely done. I'll be incredibly picky here and you can ignore anything that's off base.
Overall, very well done. I told you I'd be incredibly picky :-P Definitely let me know if you have questions or want to discuss anything. delldot talk 11:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like lots of other have got here before me. I will try to add something new to the discussion. No particular order or importance on these fixes. Just adding them as I come across them:
Overall, the article is quite good, and I would consider it GA quality in its current state! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 15:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
Thanks,
Vikrant
07:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Overall a well-written, good article that seems close to FA standards. It may help to have a FA model article to follow (with the large number of Bond films, is one FA already?). Here are some comments for improvement:
These are fairly nit-picky, hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
Thanks,
Vikrant
07:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I like what is here, but felt the article still could use some work and additional material to be more complete. Specific suggestions:
Again, I liked what I read, learned some things, and think this is a good effort, but it still has some major improvements needed. Hpe this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have recently re-written this article in its entirety and hope to take it to FAC in due time. It's currently at GAC and any comments would be appreciated. Thanks,
M3tal H3ad (
talk)
11:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
"Over 3000 people were auditioned for roles in the United Kingdom, although many were rejected." - Do you mean that the 3000 people were UK residents, or that auditions were held in the UK and actors of whichever nationality auditioned in that country? LuciferMorgan ( talk) 22:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I wanted to comment as this had not received much feedback. I read the article and was quite impressed, but here are a few suggestions for improvement. I like the current lead, but according to WP:LEAD it should be four paragraphs (for the length of the article). My rule of thumb is that if it is a section or subsection in the article, it should at least be mentioned in the lead. I also noticed there are a number of units which are given as one system only (feet, tonnes) and should really be in both metric and english untis per the MOS. My last question concerns the references - if you are going for FAC (and I think it is quite close as it is), then some of the references do not seem to meet the requirements of WP:CITE. Specifically there are a series of refs which are just a cryptic title: i.e. Ref 7 "57 Years Later - Continuing the story", also refs 12 - 15 and 18. My guess is that these are referring to chapters in a DVD on the making of the film, but that needs to be made much more explicit. Hope this helps - I don't have much more to say becasue I think it is very good already, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I effectively re-wrote the article, and am pleased with its current state. I'd like to think it could make it to A-class or GA-level, but I haven't worked on a film article to this extent before and would like this WikiProject's input on what I've done and any improvements I can make. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd also recommend looking at several of our FA-class articles to get an idea for how a featured article on a film is structured and composed. Look forward to seeing the article come along! Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 00:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Before I'd even seen your reply here, I decided that as long as all the information in the infobox was used and duly cited elsewhere, it didn't need to clutter the infobox itself. Details such as the music, editor, distributor, and running time aren't well integrable into the prose such as it stands; but in line with the policy on verifiability I want all of that information cited/sourced (not delving into the reliability of the sources under discussion just now). If not citing those factoids in-line, how would you recommend I be able to associate given information with its reliable source?
An aside, I realize these peer review pages are for these purposes, but why do they take place on a separate page as opposed to the articles' talk pages? That would keep discussion with the article where it can arguably belong, and to keep the WikiProject appraised either the discussions could be transcluded here, or tagging the article for PR could categorize it in some notifying fashion? Just curious. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Currently the List of disaster films is being updated and heavily edited. I would like to know how the list is looking, and if it is more useful than it had been prior to my edits.
prior to my edits my latest edit
I used the article on disaster for the headings on this list. - LA @ 21:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This was a highly regarded film when it was released in 1999, dividing critics and is an important milestone in Paul Thomas Anderson's career. I have added a considerable amount of production and reception info to this article and would like any other suggestions or comments to improve it to GA status. Thanks. -- J.D. ( talk) 17:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a hard film to write an article about, and also a difficult article to review because of the complexities of the film, but I'll give it a go.
Overview
Cast
Reception
Themes
DVD
External links
Anyway, good work so far - I hope this helps. -- Beloved Freak 12:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me a pretty good article already... I've nominated it for GA, just wanted to see if anyone else would like to comment. Thanks, Mdiamante ( talk) 01:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC).
This film has quite a dedicated cult following and is a highly regarded comedy. I've cleaned up this article considerably but it could definitely use some more work and I would love to have any comments or suggestions that could help raise this article to GA status. -- J.D. ( talk) 17:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I've just got the DVD of this monumental classic--and hopefully I'm not alone when I know this is actually turning 70...this Friday! Sorry if I can't get back to quicken this up any further till the New Year, but suggestions from the WP community are welcome. -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 19:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
A lot of work has gone into this article to improve it with the hopes of achieving a GA status soon. Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. -- J.D. ( talk) 08:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Good work so far, J.D. Here are a few thoughts:
Infobox
Images
Lead
Plot
Cast and characters
Production
Soundtrack
Reception
That's all I can think of for now, hope it helps... -- Beloved Freak 19:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks to be close to FA. But apparently I'm not allowed to nominate so I'm giving it a PR instead. Buc ( talk) 11:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The lead looks fine. It's longer than a lot of existing FA. Buc ( talk) 18:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay usual PR stuff, its a GA, so I'm aiming for FA at some point in the future (no matter how far it is). Any comments are welcomed: grammer, glaring errors, info that should be included, sourcing etc. Also if you do know of any good info that for some reason isn't included then that's great as well. Thanks. Gran 2 18:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)