| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done quite a bit of work on it. Being an older, lesser known, film, the research was somewhat difficult, but incredibly enjoyable. I'm very interested to know what others think of it, and how it can be improved to be taken to either a GA or FA status.
Thanks, Onel5969 (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Comments (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)
- NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
- Checklinks tool shows a few problems throughout with links and slow links. I strongly suggest archiving as many as possible with added parameters archiveurl= and archivedate= with Internet Archive links.
- Per WP:LEAD, consider expanding the lede intro sect, (four paragraphs), so it may function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents.
- 6 total images used in article, those will require an image review at either WP:GAN or WP:FAC, suggest you go over all those image pages and make sure all fields are filled in and all licensing checks out okay.
- Plot summary looks a tad bit skimpy, could be expanded a bit more, perhaps one more paragraph.
- A few one-sentence-long-paragraphs and other short paragraphs throughout, consider expanding and/or merging them up.
- Notes sect is awkwardly titled. Notes title for header of sect generally means footnotes or citations, not body prose text. All the info in that sect should be moved into Production sect.
- Try to find more sourced info to expand Production sect and Reception sect. Then, perhaps break up Production sect into a few smaller sub sects within larger Production sect.
- Useful reading at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Style guidelines/Copy-editing essentials
- NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Hope that's helpful, and good luck! — Cirt (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Response to Cirt's Comments
- Okay.
- Absolutely. I began using the wayback machine after I created this article, so I hadn't used it yet. Will definitely go back through and archive all the ones I can (some can't be archived).
- Will do.
- Not sure what you mean by all fields filled in. I have done the licensing checks, though.
- I'll fill it out a bit.
- Again, will do.
- Not sure what to do here. Some of the information, in my opinion shouldn't be in the production section, since it is peripherally related to the film, but not production-related. I took the "Notes" heading from another article a few months ago. Perhaps per the film style guidelines (which you reference above), I'll call it trivia. I'll move what I can.
- I pretty much exhausted the online source material on this film. I went through about 30 film fan and trade publications, and included every pertinent fact (didn't want to get too trivial). I think this is a limiting factor in many of these old films, can't really do much about this.
- Thanks. Will keep this in mind.
- Okay.
- Just wanted to say thank you for taking the time. Will be coming right back at you regarding RU Professional. Onel5969 (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Anything rather than calling that sect header Notes would be better, as that implies citations. Suggest you look for more sources in archival databases including NewsBank, LexisNexis, InfoTrac, and Westlaw. Also may want to search lots of books for more info. Could try asking for your local reference librarian at your local library for help. — Cirt (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)