Wikipedia:Peer review/The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008 film)/archive1

The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008 film)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to get it to be the best possible article it can be. There is already a lot of information here but some tips or information to improve it would be great. Help getting it to FA?

Thanks, Peppage^tlk 05:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Just had a quick look. Very nice work. Liked pics (experts will check copyright). Text in nice-sized even blocks. Good logic, fair tone. My pers fav: plenty of refs! :) But I'm not much use as a reviewer: I overlook too many points for improvement. Steel yourself, I think you're heading for an FA, but you'll soon get a work over from better judges than I. Very best! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I have only checked out the lead and plot sections so far. Here are my comments on those - the rest of the review will follow at short intervals.

• Lead
  • "...eradicate them off Earth." – "from earth" would be better phraseology
  • 'It received many negative reviews, noting the film was "heavy on special effects, but without a coherent story at its base".' There are issues with the grammar and phrasing here, but the main problem is that your direct quote can only be attributed to one review, not "many". So I suggest the following: 'It received many negative reviews; typically the film was found to be "heavy on special effects, but without a coherent story at its base".'
  • As the above is a direct quote it must be cited.
  • "During its opening week the film took top spot at the box office and has grossed over $230 million worldwide." I suggest you specify U.S. box office, then say "and has since grossed..." etc

Done but I added where the quote came from --Peppage^tlk 19:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Plot: the plot summary is quite disjointed and hard to follow. Specific points:-
  • Instead of saying "with a speed of 3x107m/s" and then having to explain via footnote, why not just say: "at one-tenth of the speed of light"?
  • What is a "biological" spaceship?
  • How do we get to know that the being's name is Klaatu, and what his mission is?
  • "In the ensuing confusion..." is too vague. It sounds like panic rather than confusion. Can you say precisely who did the shooting, and what caused the panic? Did Klaatu present his mission in a threatening way, perhaps?
  • "...detained by Regina Jackson" Should this be "detained on the orders of Regina Jackson"?
  • "he soon finds himself eluding the authorities" is odd phrasing. Suggest: "and is pursued by the authorities..."
  • "Klaatu meets with Mr Wu..." How did they meet and where – a brief account is necessary.
  • By whom has Mr Wu been "assigned"?
  • What was the purpose of the meeting with Professor Barnhardt? How did the meeting come about?
  • Does the film really end just "like that"? No closing message about the nature of a non-technological earth, either stated or implied? Very odd.

I think the changes I made better explain what actually happens in the film. The ending is just that, anything electronic is dead and I can assume that they are going to change or Klaatu thinks they are going to change but who knows. --Peppage^tlk 20:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll be back with more as soon as I can. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a little more. Although you may not wish to respond fully until I have finished the review, it would be helpful if you would briefly acknowledge my comments.

• Cast
  • When Derrickson and Stoff are mentioned, they should be properly introduced here. Derrickson has been mentioned in the lead as director, and Stoff in the infobox as a producer, but we need reminding of who they are.
  • The last sentence of the Keanu Reeves paragraph has me confused. I'm not sure what you mean by "combine" two versions of the recording. Also the phrase "a reversed version of a recording where he said the line backwards" doesn't make sense – a reversing of something said backwards would bring us back to normal.
  • Most of the paragraphs in this section are fully cited, but the Jaden Smith entry has only one citation. Does this cover all the information in this entry?

I checked and it does cover all the information for Jaden. Also the recording was brought back to "normal" but because he said it backwards it sounded more alien when the recordings were combined. --Peppage^tlk 20:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Production - Development
  • The quotations should not be in this decorative form but should be included in the general text.
  • "Derrickson also did not write in Gort's back-story..." Backstory is one word. But this informations is meaningless, unless we are told the nature of the backstory that Derrickson decided not to write.

Done I changed the wording around to better explain why the backstory was not written. --Peppage^tlk 02:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Filming
  • Second paragraph is not really about filming. Should it be here, or elsewhere?
  • Very minor point: "light pencil" may be confused in readers' minds with the "light pen" computer device. Perhaps "faint pencil marks" would avoid this confusion.

Done - I decided that the paragraph could have its own section under the production. There isn't much information, at the very least it should go under Development. --Peppage^tlk 00:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Effects
  • "They approached their spacecraft as inter dimensional portals resembling orbs." Sorry, wording is completely incomprehensible to me.
  • Measurements in feet and pounds need metric equivalents. Suggest use "convert" template.
  • "The visual effects team looked at molecules" Erm...I'm not a scientist, but are you sure this is possible? Or at least can you say how they did it?
  • "The 15th draft..." – of the script?

Done - I agree the wording wasn't very clear and I think I improved it. I also checked the source and it was 15th draft of the script. The notes did not explain the molecules so I changed it to every natural object which was in the notes but is less confusing. I thought this was better then going for a direct quote. --Peppage^tlk 17:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks Brian, Peppage's good work now given careful constructive feedback. Best to everyone as the process continues. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)