Wikipedia:Peer review/Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides/archive1

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… the film recently started production, and thus warranted its own article. For it to be included in the POTC Good Topic, it needs a peer review. I'm willing to hear all comments and suggestions.

Thanks, igordebraga ≠ 01:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I would wait until the film is released (so a reception and box office data can be included) before nominating it for a good topic or good article -- so the article will feel more "complete". The article will go through many changes once the film is release, good or bad.

Comments by User:MikeAllen

External links and dablinks

• There are a few dablinks that need disambiguated. See here.
• Check links all look good. [1]

Film Infobox

• English language should not be linked.

Lead

• There could be a paragraph included dedicated to the production of the film.
• Adding references to the lead should be avoided that are uncontroversial. The release date is already linked, or should be in the "Release" section (see "Production" below).

Plot

• This summary is a direct copy and paste of this. It should either be in quotations, or better yet, summarized into your own words.

Cast

• There should a cite next to each entry (even using the same citation from the casting section for each entry will suffice) since it's likely to be challenged. The cast list tends to invite newer editors and IPs to add unsourced or rumored cast (usually copied from IMDb and they have disclaimer that reads, "Because this project is categorized as being in production, the data is subject to change; some data could be removed completely."). Or you could just eliminate the cast list altogether and just rely on the prose in the "Casting" section. ;-)

Production

• This whole section would look better as level 2 header: "Production", followed by level 3 headers: "Development", "Writing", "Casting", "Filming". I was listing what could go where, but found it much easier to do it myself in my sandbox and show it to you already done. See here. The way it was laid out in the article is rather confusing and inconsistent.

Marketing

• This is unsourced and should be removed or have the {{fact}} tag next to it. It would also fit better under the "Release" section.

References

• All the refs look like reliable and valid sources. Yes, even the Twitter one, IMO. It's from his official feed and it's relevant. Though if a newer, more "reliable" source can be found, use that. Also, you better WebCite [archive] it (see below) now since it can easily be removed. The citations should have publishing information [work=Los Angeles Times | publisher=(Tribune Company), etc]. The dates should all be consistent. I personally use the "July 12, 2010" format, by that's just me. The title for the reference should not be in all caps, even if that's how they are originally written. On articles I heavily work on and aim for GA, I archive (using WebCite) every single reference and add it in the reference hidden (until the site goes offline) like <!--|archivelink=the webcite archive link|archivedate=date archived-->. This saves a lot of work and heart ache when a good source is removed from the web and you must search for a cached version or another article. Or worst you lose the source for good.

Notes

This is my first peer review. I have nominated an article for a peer review and thought it was only fair that I review an article. I hope you found this helpful. :) Mike Allen 05:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)