| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it appears to be in very good shape and is obviously an important page in the Films category. I have not personally edited it but I would like to see the ball rolling on it. I would suggest a Peer Review that is specifically geared towards FA status and that gives suggestions to improving the article for any users who see the page. I would also suggest adding any maintenance tags within the body of the article. I may work on this page in the future but I would imagine that I'm not alone there so we might as well set things up for anyone to improve this article.
Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
For starters, you could fix the Citation Needed templates and the refs followed by unsourced chunks of text. igordebraga ≠ 01:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comments by David Fuchs
{{doing}} Ping me if I have't responded in a day or two. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Overall, it's a fairly solid base, but from my eyes it needs some hefty work to get to FA.
- The lead section seems to jump around a lot; ideally, it should mirror the actual structure of the article, so it's odd that it goes into details about its accolades and impact, then jumps back to its premise, development, and initial reception (and then more impact.)
- On the subject of media: File:Citiza kane.jpg doesn't seem to significantly add to the article per WP:NFCC; the same goes for File:Rosebud-Pine.jpg. File:Writing Kane.JPG does not give any evidence the photo was published without a copyright notice and thus is in the public domain. File:Citizen Kane deep focus.jpg is too poor and low-res an image to actually convey the focus aspect of the shot, thus is doesn't seem an effective fair-use case.
- There's a lot of unsourced content throughout, both expressly tagged with {{cn}} and that which isn't. Among the major sections:
- The home release info, including details on transfer and dates of releases
- Bits of Hearst's response sound a bit sensationalist (particularly the closing paragraph)
- Some content is apparently duplicated (such as the offer to buy off the print from RKO, which is mentioned in the "pre-release controversy" section and again in the "Hearth's response" section immediately after.)
- What does this line mean at the end of the special effects section? A loud, full-screen closeup of a typewriter typing a single word ("weak"), magnifies the review for the Chicago Inquirer.
- I'd say the article relies a bit too much on large amounts of block quotes instead of summarizing and paraphrasing the content.
- As is often the issue with these sections, the "Popular culture" section is a mess. Auctions aren't really "pop culture", and a random reference to The Simpsons doesn't make a coherent section. It needs to be expanded and clarified or cut altogether.
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)