Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment/RequestArchive1

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Film | Assessment
Cast list added.-Hal Raglan 03:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cast list added.-Hal Raglan 03:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upgraded to B-class.--Crzycheetah 23:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the missing Cast section (If you think some other actor should be there, add him/her). As you said, it really earned a "B" class. Good job! You can even nominate it for GA. --Crzycheetah 07:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've assessed it at B. Keep adding sources and look over the GA criteria and consider nominating it for GA once the article has met the criteria. --Nehrams2020 03:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I rated it as future class for now, until the film is released. --Nehrams2020 19:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should remain as a stub until a few more things are added. According to the template on the talk page, it just needs a few more categories and two more sections of information. The intro already talks about the sequel and awards, consider either moving that down into their own respective sections and expanding upon them. Once these are added, there shouldn't be a problem to rating it as a start. --Nehrams2020 19:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That'll do it. Start class. Doctor Sunshine talk 02:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upgraded to start class. --Nehrams2020 16:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it meets the guidelines of the template on the talk page (when it's currently a stub), you can upgrade it to start. --Nehrams2020 20:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add a cast list, categories for country and language, a source and fair use rationale for the movie poster, and for the award section, sound track is one word. Once these are fixed, you can reassess it to Start class. --Nehrams2020 22:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Importance is not that high of a priority for articles within our project, the main thing to focus on is its class (which is currently B, what I would have given it). I'd recommend continuing to add sources and updating the box office figures. Wait a few more weeks until the excitement dies down and then consider nominating it for GA. Make sure to look over the GA criteria first. --Nehrams2020 17:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is rated Start-class, but looks better than that. igordebraga ≠ 21:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed to B, looks like it will soon become a GA at this point. --Nehrams2020 22:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rated stub-class; I've rewritten and expanded the article, would appreciate reassessment. Thanks! Flummery 20:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have assessed to start class, good work so far. Some things you can look to fix very easily is to add fair use rationales to the two images and add categories for the year the film was released, the country, and genres. If you want keep improving it to B or GA, consider getting a peer review to see what needs to be improved. --Nehrams2020 22:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add a fair use rationale for the poster, categories for the genre(s), and add one other section of information (box office, reception, DVD release, etc.). Once these are added, it can be reassessed to Start. --Nehrams2020 21:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Plastictv 01:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, Start class. --Nehrams2020 17:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as Start class. --Nehrams2020 17:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upgraded to Start class. --Nehrams2020 17:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as B class. Make sure to add some categories for the genre(s). Keep working on it and see if you can get it to GA. --Nehrams2020 17:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kung Fu Hustle
    • Expanded the plot and reorganized the pictures to follow the plot. Move the character list, that is over detailed into a new article, provided a link for to the new article. Please see if the quality is improved.--Kylohk 11:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the article to reach B class, the cast section should be moved up after the plot, fair use rationales are needed for all of the images, the characters section should be expanded upon or combined with the cast section, perhaps mention the DVD release, add sources for the box office totals and rottentomatoes reviews, and I think you need a spoiler template before the parodies and references section. Once you address these, I will reassess it to B. If you want to go to GA, you should then work on adding more sources and looking to other GA films for examples on how to continue to improve it further. Let me know if you have any questions on my talk page. --Nehrams2020 18:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've upgraded it to start class. If you'd like to develop it further, I'd suggest a production section, also summary the reception in the lead. The interpretation section needs sources otherwise it'll qualify as original research and have to be deleted. The notes section can be renamed references, and the reference section deleted, as they are redundant. Some articles have both when there are a lot of books used, just to economize space, but that's not the case here. Small things, references shouldn't have spaces in between them. Sense of Cinema doesn't need to be italicized. The flags in the infobox for the countries qualifies as flagcruft but the release date one is fine. Anyway, good going. Doctor Sunshine talk 19:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The movie poster could also use a fair use rationale, look to Image:Norbit (2007 film) poster.jpg for an example. --Nehrams2020 19:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upgraded to start, and we're not really worthy! --Nehrams2020 08:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upgraded to start, keep up the good work. --Nehrams2020 19:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reassess it to start if fair use rationales are added to all of the images, and one more section of information is needed. Perhaps box office, DVD release, critical release, etc. It should even have two of these since trivia isn't really that acceptable as a section. When you have addressed these issues leave a message here. --Nehrams2020 08:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OIC, can anyone recommend a section I could add? as it was a TV pilot and didn't have a DVD/box office release etc. Ryan4314 09:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It still should remain future class for WP:Films until its release date on May 17th. At that point , you can rate it to B class. --Nehrams2020 16:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Due to it's length it would normally remain a start class, but due to the many sources included in the article, I reassessed it as B. Keep up the good work, and keep improving it. I'd recommend expanding the fair use rationales a bit, look to some GA/FA film articles for examples. --Nehrams2020 17:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kung Fu Hustle
    • It is current a Start rating. I have integrated the Cast and characters section, and added the reception of RottenTomatoes and provided sources for the box office and Awards. Let's see if it's quality has been improved.--Kylohk 19:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reassess it to B class, but it still needs a few things fixed of course. There may be too many screenshots to continue to qualify for fair use, so consider removing maybe two of them. The plot should also be shortened somewhat. The WP:Films guidelines recommends around 900 words, I think I counted over 1200-1300 words. Keep adding sources and consider getting a peer review to see if you want to keep working on this to bring it to GA. The more sources you add, the easier it's going to be to get more information and improve the chances of being raised to GA. --Nehrams2020 19:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm a Cheerleader

I assessed it as B, good work in expanding. It could use more expansion in the sections that are only a few sentences long, such as the box office and awards section. Maybe list how it did in it's first weekend compared to other films, or its ranking. Some of the smaller paragraphs could also be combined. I'd recommend taking it to WP:Films peer review department, and they'll help you to see what you still need for GA. --Nehrams2020 19:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aguirre, the Wrath of God
    • More work can and will be done to further improve the quality of this article, but recently I've greatly expanded it to the point where I believe it can now be reassessed as a "B" quality instead of the current "Start" class. Take a look and see if you agree.-Hal Raglan 22:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reassessed to B class. Good to see that each image has fair use rationale along with a lot of inline citations. Keep expanding of course, and consider a WP:Films Peer Review to see what further things need to be done to get it to GA. I think it's close with a little more expansion. --Nehrams2020 22:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks like it will be a B article once it is released, but for now it should stay at Future class until May 26. I'd consider waiting a few weeks before taking it to GA until all of the plot details slow down that are added by anons and the box office figures are up to date, and any other details are properly sourced. --Nehrams2020 22:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is currently B class. I've trimmed the plot down to 677 words and added clear fair use images. I have also expanded the production section to cover chorerography, casting and music. The article is currently a Good Article Candidate. Let's see what you think of it.--Kylohk 13:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Kung-Fu Hussle Poster.jpg needs a fair use rationale and the spacing for some of the inline citations need to be fixed (make sure they go directly after the punctuation). However, the article looks good to me, so at this time I don't see why it wouldn't pass unless there is something I'm missing besides the two things I listed. --Nehrams2020 20:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is my first stab at this and was hoping that someone could just have a look at what i have done. All there was for this film was a very short paragraph and nothing else. I added the infobox and a few sections, please let me know. Thanks. Murphy Inc 07:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assessed this as a start class, good work on expanding it so far. The movie poster could use a fair use rationale and I think that the only license you need on it would just be the poster one, the copyrighted license isn't necessary. Leave a message on my talk page if you have any further questions. --Nehrams2020 20:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i have taken your advice and have done much more work on the article adding screenshots and more general information, i think it is more or less finished now. Thanks for your help.
Perhaps you can wikify all the links, including the author and the retrieval date using the citation templates, also consider using a much more details fair use template for all images. I give it a B for the effort.--Kylohk 16:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was recently promoted to Good article status. The main editor, Kylohk, is aiming for FA, and I was wondering if it could be an A-class article in the interim? — WiseKwai 11:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it qualifies, I'll change it now. --Nehrams2020 02:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was recently promoted to B-Class status but since then i have made many changes including those that have been suggested by peers as above. I am wondering whether ot not be film article could be re-reviewed? Thanks Murphy Inc 10:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, B class is the highest it can get before nominating it at GAC for GA status. I would consider getting a peer review with the WP:Films which will provide a better review of the article to pinpoint anything else that needs to be fixed. Then, based on any comments you receive that are addressed, consider nominating at GAC once you have looked over the GA criteria. --Nehrams2020 02:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Face/Off

edit
I just got done doing a huge overhaul and complete rewrite of this article. Is it ready for B -> A? Noclip 02:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fair use rationales should be expanded upon, and the album cover is lacking one. Articles are not upgraded to A until they reach GA first. If you want to nominate the article at GAC (making sure the article meets all of the GA criteria, and once it is awarded GA status, I'll take another look. Some other things that should be fixed before going to GAC:
    • "It is considered one of Woo's most successful Hollywood works." This needs an inline citation, preferably from several sources.
    • The lead needs to be expanded to better summarize the article.
    • The size of the screenshots could probably be increased a little.
    • If you can, add a production section: details about how the movie got its start, the script, camera techniques, locations, etc.
    • The release section should also be expanded upon.

After you have addressed these issues, consider getting a peer review within the project and then take the article to GAC. --Nehrams2020 04:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture - Drama

edit

Not exactly an assessment; this article is a Featured list candidate. I would like to invite members of this project to visit the nomination and give their opinion.--Legionarius 08:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic Park III

edit
I've done some major changes trying to pattern it after Jurassic Park (film), a featured article. I think it's ready for B class. ColdFusion650 18:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should remain at start class for now. The images all need fair use rationales, consider using Template:Filmrationale. More sections should be added, including maybe a DVD release, soundtrack info, critic's response with a RottenTomatoes figure, expansion of the Dinosaurs on screen (something like the cast section, but obviously different information), a small mention on the next sequel, awards and honors, etc. Additionally, the article needs more inline citations and sources added. I would say at least ten to reach B status. Keep working on the article, it just needs some more expansion with sources to reach B class. --Nehrams2020 19:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I've patterned it after the first Jurassic Park film. It has no soundtrack section, just a link in release to the soundtrack, as does this article. The DVD release is the same, although I haven't put the DVD info into the release section yet. As far as Jurassic Park IV, it's covered on the franchise page, and Jurassic Park contains no info on Lost World. An expansion of the production, release, and reaction section is definitely needed. ColdFusion650 20:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no release section. Sorry about that part. I'm also working on Lost World, and I got confused. ColdFusion650 20:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't need to follow the same exact format as the other ones. A few sentences on the next sequel wouldn't have a negative effect on the article. Also it's best for articles to not all follow the same format, it adds more variety to the encyclopedia. Those were just suggestions, but the article does need to be expanded further. Good job with the changes you have already made. --Nehrams2020 21:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link to the new soundtrack article, as per the FA and GA sequel articles, critical response, awards, and now it's up to 13 sources. ColdFusion650 21:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The images still need fair use rationales, consider adding Template:Filmrationale. Also, it looks like the license for one of the images was accidently removed, so be sure to readd that. There was an occurrence where an inline citation came before the period, make sure it comes after. The dinosaur section should still be expanded more, maybe talking about how important they were to the movie, at what parts they occurred. If you don't want to do it similar to the cast section, then the section should be converted to prose to prevent it from being a simple list. Also, this is unrelated, so you can do it if you want, but a list of dinosaurs found throughout the Jurassic Park series, should be created since you have a list of characters. You don't have to add one to bring this up to B class. Once you have addressed the above issues, and I'd say adding another section of information DVD release, brief section on the sequel, or something else you think relevant, I don't see there being any problems bringing it up to B class. --Nehrams2020 18:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationales, citation fixed, and DVD info. The dinosaurs list for the entire series is at Jurassic Park franchise. ColdFusion650 19:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have assessed the article as B class. Keep working on it and consider letting go through a peer review first or have another WP:Film member or two look it over before taking it to GAC. I would like to see this get to GA soon though, good job so far! --Nehrams2020 19:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial

edit

The article is GA, and the FAC has gone on for so long and has been improved, copyediting and restructured so much I think it should be recognized as A-class. Alientraveller 11:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised this one hasn't completed FAC already. I upgraded it to A class, but hopefully it moves up soon. --Nehrams2020 18:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal (film)

edit

Stumbled on this - is well developed but only rated Start. igordebraga ≠ 16:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rated it as B class, and it looks like its currently at GAC. There are a few minor things that should be fixed, which I left on the talk page of the article. --Nehrams2020 17:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rocky Horror Picture Show

edit

This article was at one time a mishmash of lists, trivia and a great deal of misinformation and inaccurate details. It has taken a great deal of time and endured edit wars and reverts until everyone finally decided to cool down and work together, there may still be some bad feelings but the article has diffinently benefited from all the work. I have just finished a new clean up and re-write on some sections as well as merging and retitling of said sections to adhere more to Project Film Style Guide Lines. Please assess this article to raise its rating. I believe it deserves it now.--Amadscientist 05:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember how the article used to look and it's good to see that it has been greatly improved from what it was. The article is currently B class, and the next class to reach is GA. To be able to proceed to the next class the article must go through the Good Article Candidate nomination process. For the article to pass, it must meet the requirements of the GA criteria. If the article passes the GA process, the next class would be A class which would be determined when you bring the article back here to the assessment department. Before nominating the article at GAC, address these issues:
  1. "The film is considered as a cult classic, and a midnight movie" Remove "as". and the comma after "classic".
  2. Expand the fair use rationales for each image to ensure that the reviewer will accept them. There may be too many screenshots on the article, but that will be up to the reviewer to decide. Usually, the stronger the case you can make for the fair use rationale for using the image on the article, the more likely you will be able to keep the image on the article. Also, for the images, use frames so that you can include a brief statement describing what the image is of.
  3. "In a hand few of locations it has shown for nearly the entire time period." This needs to be reworded.
  4. "On the 15th anniversary of the film in 1990, a much anticipated VHS Home Video came out." Avoid words like "much anticipated" as this is seen as POV, and would require a source for inclusion. Remove these words and any others that prevent the article from presenting the information in a neural view.
  5. Wikilink full dates (ex. September 26th, 1975 (also remove "th")).
  6. ""A different set of Jaws" refers to the film Jaws (film), the iconic 1975 film" Fix the link for Jaws and remove iconic.

The article may have other issues, but I don't want to read too much into the article as I haven't seen the film yet. Once you have addressed the above issues, have an outside editor who is not normally involved with the article and look it over. I see that it has been taken to WP:Film's peer review which will prepare the article to proceed to GAC. --Nehrams2020 06:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you VERY MUCH! All suggestions will be carried out.--Amadscientist 21:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saving Private Ryan

edit

This is currently a B and has been peer-reviewed. We've done a lot of work since then and I'd like it re-assessed if possible. Thanks--Lepeu1999 16:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to go through the Good article nomination process first to go to the next level after B class. For information about the process, please read my response above to The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Once the article has been passed as a GA, the next level will be A class. --Nehrams2020 07:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Silence

edit

This is considered one of the key films of the spaghetti western genre. Please rate this one! — Tirkfltalk 08:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the article should remain at Start class at this time. To improve it to B class, there are a few things you can do. Remove the trivia section, putting all relevant information in the rest of the article. You can add more sections of information, look to other passed GA/FAs for examples of alternate information you can include in the article. Add more sources for information in the article that may be questioned by people who are reading the article. Usually, the more sources you can bring in, the more the article can be expanded and be more verifiable. The image in the infobox needs a fair use rationale, and if you can, it should be reuploaded and decreased in size to better meet the fair use criteria. Once you have addressed these issues, the next class is B followed by GA. --Nehrams2020 09:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Mother

edit

Rated future class on the quality scale. This film has now been released. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. 130.49.163.69 20:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's probably high Start or low B class. The plot section in particular needs more work and should include the ending, and it appears that there may be a naming issue: The Third Mother or Mother of Tears? Referencing is decent; I'd also consolidate the different script sections into one general pre-production section, and try to keep the summaries as brief as can be. Good luck! :) Girolamo Savonarola 22:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Dogs Go to Heaven

edit

This article was rated Start Class in April 2007 (and rightfully so, as it was mostly a long plot synopsis and a mish-mash of unreferenced trivia items), but while I was rewriting the article on the animation studio that produced it (Sullivan Bluth Studios), I found plenty of good reference material which I could also use to expand and improve this article. I hope it's more balanced now, as I have trimmed down the over-long plot section, removed the trivia (keeping what information was verifiable and relevant in the article text), added detailed information about the film's production, release, etc. and referenced it up as best I could. I think a reassessment is appropriate now. ~Matticus TC 23:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has definitely improved, but still needs a few more minor things. Add a cast section, a category for American films, add some more sources for the statements in the reviews section (such as "Many critics were hard on the movie, drawing unfavorable comparisons to Disney's offering, criticizing the disjointed narrative, the quality of the animation, and the songs by Charlie Strouse and T.J. Kuenster. Some found the darker subject material objectionable in a family film, featuring as it does depictions of death, violence, drinking, smoking, gambling, demons and Hell.") and also consider for the inline citations using the templates at WP:CITET (This isn't a requirement, but does make the referencing more consistent. For examples of the templates, see some of the current GA/FA film articles.). Once you've addressed these issues, I think the article would qualify as a low B class. After that, you could continue to add even more sourcing and see if there was any other relevant information that can be added before going to WP:GAC. --Nehrams2020 23:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a section on the main cast now, and more references for the reviews of the film. Not sure about adding a category for American films, because the production and promotion was funded by a British investor (and the studio's own capital) and it was produced mostly at an Irish studio. Does it count as an American movie as well simply because the studio and its founding members originated in America? ~Matticus TC 00:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I thought that it was an American film, so don't worry about adding it. I've reassessed it to B, and if you want to get it up to GA, you'll need to keep adding sources. There are many great film sites out there, so make use of Google. Keep up the good work and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 02:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. Always useful to have another pair of eyes to look something over. ~Matticus TC 07:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small Town Gay Bar

edit

Added much more info including references. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 10:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film Festival of Serbia

edit

Created this summer, article about first edition of Serbian national film festival. Looking for assessment from some of Film project members. Thank you! Jdjerich 12:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bilo jednom...

edit

Another one for assessment. As much as I was able to follow, it may deserve better than stub-class. Anyone to check? Jdjerich 12:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things - first of all, notability needs to be asserted, otherwise you may be at risk for an AfD. Second, I understand that you are the director of the film? While it's not strictly prohibited for you to create or edit the article, it might be worth a perusal of WP:COI just to avoid any potential problems now or in the future - we want to keep you a productive and happy editor, so the clearer those issues are for everyone, the better. As for the article text, the photo section probably needs to go - images should be selective and pertinent to the text being discussed at hand. External links could do with some paring down. I see that you've already started inline citations (and hats off to you for being well ahead of the ball on that); it would be great to see even more. :) Girolamo Savonarola 20:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Zombie Diaries

edit

Admittedly low importance, but it has clearly survived AfD and I think it passes the 5 criteria for B-Class articles. I invite comments. Thanks, Poker Flunky 20:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few things need to be in order before a B-Class is confered - the references need to be much greater in number and should be inline in format (ie not just copy-pasting URLs); external links need to be pared down significantly; the plot section needs more expansion; and the critical response probably could do with more "mainstream" response, maybe some meta-tally a la Rottentomatoes or Metacritic, and some more info on the box office performance. I look forward to seeing it develop! Girolamo Savonarola 20:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image also needs a fair use rationale. --Nehrams2020 22:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Independence Day (film)

edit

I'm now considering bringing Independence Day (film) to GA-class, but I have no clue how to do so. I know theres the guideline, but I learn better by asking questions. The guidelines for films is very different from the anime and manga section guideline and the video games; the big difference is desribing the plot...I need serious help with that. I'll just bullet point them.

  • I dont know if the plot section is too much, as with other wikiprojects, it says to just give summeries, and not the plot twists n such.
  • The cast: should all characters be included, or just the main characters?

I'm going to start small with this article and do little by little, so I would like help with these to things.

Thank you! THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 22:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. From a brief glance at the article, I can see a number of improvements which would make an immediate difference:
  •  Y Condense the plot summary - at present, all the required information is there, but much that is not required, such as direct quotes from the film. Try to focus on what drives the plot forward and nothing else. For example, the opening paragraph and a half can be removed completely; start the plot summary with "On July 2, the world stands in shock as an immense alien mothership enters orbit around Earth." The rest is mere dressing and not necessary to understand the film. Also remove unnecessary elucidation, such as the exact dimensions of the alien vessels (as I have done in the sentence above). The next paragraph is a prime example, as it describes the ships appearing over Earth's major cities. This can be replaced with a simple statement to that effect ("The mothership deploys several dozen smaller ships to hover over many of the world's major cities, resulting in strange atmospheric phenomenon.") Then jump to the section on the characters.
  •  Y The cast list should probably be just a cast list, without all the character info, unless it seems useful.
  • Critical response - Include properly-cited quotes from leading critics (Metacritic or Rottentomatoes may help you out here, or the "external reviews" entry for the film at the imdb), with a good balance. For example, if the film were to be rated 50% at Rottentomatoes, include that statistic, plus weight the negative reviews to positive in roughly the same ratio. Try to include something on its reception outside the US. Any awards the film won might go here, or in their own section if there are lots.
  • Box office - detailed box office stats from Box Office Mojo are generally a good start, with both domestic and international performance if the information is available. Records broken should be listed too.
  •  Y Work the Trivia section into prose, if you feel the information warrants a mention. If not, delete it.
  •  Y The "References to other films" and "references to popular culture" should either be removed or be appropriately cited.
  • Remember, cite as much as you can. No original research should be contained within by the end.
  • Finally, find an existing film article which already has GA status, and use it as your very rough template.
These pointers won't get it to GA status, but they should be a good start. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 23:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! When I believe I've done these, I'll check these. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 11:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again; having had a look at the article so far, your edits have already made a difference to its quality. However, having refreshed my memory of the manual of style for films, I can see that a couple of my recommendations conflict slightly with what is recommended there. I still think they'd help make it a good article, just perhaps not a Good Article, if you see what I mean. Then again, going with WP:IAR is sometimes the best course of action too. Anyway, have a read of this section for some further pointers. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 06:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blast from the Past

edit

I came across Blast from the Past (film) today - it looks to have been rated a stub, improved, and never re-assessed. It should probably be a start-class article. Kuronue | Talk 22:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It still should be a stub until the issues in the upgrading template on the talk page have been addressed. It looks like the intro needs more expansion, a cast section, another section (box office, DVD release, production, soundtrack, etc.), and a category for English-language films. Once those are added, the article can be upgraded to start class. --Nehrams2020 03:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okkadu

edit

I've added many facts and tried to make the article look good.I hope the article gets a better rating.S.GaneshKumar 12:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Road

edit
This article is very short at the moment, as I've just gone on information I've found online. I'd be very grateful to anyone who would assess this and maybe even give a list of possible improvements. I've ordered a copy of the film, so in the future I'll be adding a far better synopsis. Davidovic 09:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It meets all of the requirements of start class, and I have reassessed it. --Nehrams2020 20:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Assessment/RequestArchive1&oldid=1138363901"