Wikipedia:Peer review/Serenity (2005 film)/archive1

Serenity (film)

Currently, the article is listed as a Good Article and is {{A-Class}} for the Films WikiProject. Furthermore, it seems to be a good article and I would like to see if become featured. I'd like to know what can be done to make that happen. Thanks, Cbrown1023 00:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The "themes" and "cinematic and cultural allusions" sections seem to be a novel synthesis of published material. Since this is an encyclopedia article and not a film criticism paper, we can really just delete most of that, with the exception of statements that cite sources which specifically assert themes and allusions in the film.

Could you give some examples of this becasue I looked through it and saw a ton of references. Cbrown1023 01:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The plot synopsis is at least twice as long as it needs to be. By the middle of the second paragraph, I gave up on all the unnecessary detail and just moved on.

The last section of the article ("spin-offs") does not cite any references whatsoever. In this state the article would not pass FA. There are also some problems with the tone of this section ("a map of the 'verse" !?), which should be corrected as soon as possible.

I changed the tone of the section, but what does it really need a source? It is obviously a spin-off because of the names and the desription there. Cbrown1023 01:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Other than the above, all I really have to recommend is to give the article a good copyedit. You can probably get it down to 80% (or even less) of its current length. At 56kb, it's currently sprawling far outside the attention span of anyone but the most fanatic fans. —ptk✰fgs 00:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Make the synopsis shorter? Take a look at the Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith article, which is a FA. It contains a synopsis of the same length as the Serenity article's synopsis, as we modeled the Serenity synopsis after that. The Wookieepedian 00:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh my. That one's even longer. How obnoxious. —ptk✰fgs 00:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The plot section could definately use some condensing, but it is only 910 words, the guideline is 600 words... that's not too much over (though it could use some condensing but that may not be possible). Cbrown1023 01:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the Plot Synopsis of this article. That guideline is just that, a guideline. A personally I believe it should be upped to at least 800 words. I'd also like to see where you got this guideline from. The issue is that some film articles require a longer synopsis than most because of varying complexity in plot. Many users who complain about synopsis length point to articles such as Halloween (film), Halloween II, Halloween III: Season of the Witch, and Night of the Living Dead. However these articles are based around Horror films, which do not have extremely complex. That is not a judgment on quality, that is a judgment on complexity. The Revenge of the Sith synopsis, while long for a film article, actually condenses a major story event into on sentence and completely omits another. Why? Because they are not essential to understanding the plot. Whereas everything else in the section is. Most users look at synopsis section like Revenge of the Sith's and only see that it is longer than most. They don't bother to read the synopsis to realize that it cannot be condensed farther then it's current state. This is the way all synopsis sections should be handled, not based on length, but on comprehensiveness. The Filmaker 18:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Text:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • it has been
  • correctly
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR _t 22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)