Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Peer review/2006

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Film | Peer review
(Redirected from Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Peer review/2006)

Mom and Dad

edit

Currently a good article candidate, has a general peer review ongoing. However, since it's a film that's been entered into the National Film Registry, I'd like to get some input from film project folks as well, with a desire to possibly bring it to featured status (like its producer, Kroger Babb, is about to). Any help would be appreciated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing about the cast, who plays what part, even if the actors are not in Wikipedia. Shane (talk/contrib) 15:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any suggestions on how without ruining the prose?
      • Normally cast sections aren't in prose, they are just a bulletted list or table (which I'm sure you know). Cbrown1023 18:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I reviewed the featured articles with films. It seems like there's no consistency. Some (Jaws, Summer of '42) don't bother with casting at all. Some (V for Vendetta, Casablanca) have detailed bullet points. One (Dog Day Afternoon) does the table thing. I'll see if I can't try something - the actors are so secondary, it's almost an afterthought, but I don't have the official cast list with me now. I'll reply back when I've added it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot & Porudction could also be expanded, Reception looks pretty good. Cbrown1023 15:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The somewhat interesting part of this is that the plot and production itself are a rather minor part of its overall fame. The film's importance comes more in regards to how it was marketed and its influence on the genre rather than its actual plot, which was fairly unoriginal, and production, which was fairly typical. Combine that with the fact that there really isn't much else that can be said that isn't original research - I'm fairly certain I've touched upon every available piece of literature regarding the film, sans awaiting contact from the NFR. Thanks for the header change, BTW, I was never comfortable with "statistics." --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batman Begins

edit
Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a Good Article and I want to get it up to Featured status. The previous peer review can be found here. Any feedback and suggestions on improving it for FA will be very much appreciated

Thanks, Greg Jones II 20:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but Batmobile, Batsuit, and Soundtrack are not in the lead, for example.
  • Article needs references in a few more places - there is at least one fact tag and the last eight entries in Cast are uncited. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow Superman (film series) is a FA and may offer some ideas. Other FA film articles are at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media
  • Could the Design and SPecial effects sections be combined? Effects is quite short now

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 12:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I have added {{rs}} to those references and will get to them. Gary King (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews/press releases are ALWAYS reliable. Do not delete cites from Superherohype, Indielondon and Batman on film. Alientraveller (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. How do we know a site has accurately reported the interview? The site itself needs to have a reputation for fact checking and reliablity. Same for the other sources being used. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Yes, interviews are more reliable than most self-published websites, but we still need to make sure that the site publishing the interview is at least somewhat reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Superhero Hype! is a reliable source for interviews, set visits and so on, just like IGN and other similar sites. I can't really speak for IndieLondon, but there's no reason to believe a site would make up an entire interview. Alientraveller (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it reliable though? Not everyone is into superheroes or comics. IGN is reliable because it is reasonably large media company, other media companies refer to it, and it has been established for a while. Same needs to be demonstrated for other sites. No, I'm not saying that the site necessarily made up the interview, but we need to know how long the site has been around, etc. For an interview, yes, we're not necessarily looking for the same standards we would look for if this was a BLP issue, but it still needs to be above Weekly World News standards. If a site is the website of a published journal/newspaper/magazine, that helps. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just linked the article. The WSJ and EW consider it reliable. It is not a blog, it is a film news website and part of the Crave Media network. Alientraveller (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There you go then, done for Superhero Hype. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Batman on Film, they've been interviewed here,[1][2][3], and I would consider that good enough if you cannot believe they actually interview people working on the comics and films. Alientraveller (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that fingers are broken across the nation today. Try here: http://www.timeout.com/film/news/488/ to see that the interview is fully covered by numerous media. That some editor chose one site covering it over another shouldn't impugn the source automatically, AGF when an apparently sourced item appears, and the content matches the source. Do some legwork, google a bit. '2008 Nolan Dorchester Batman' found me a number of websites covering the interview.ThuranX (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The Wikipedia article should incorporate the critical analysis from Film Criticism, which I listed here. I think we should see about this analysis and others to "raise the bar" in terms of Featured Articles having extensive thematic detail (which is a little bit of a rarity). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ginger Snaps

edit

I've been working on this article for some time now, and it has come a long way from when I first read it. It's now B class (thanks Cbrown1023!), and I hope that through this peer review I can move it up to a Good Article.--Supernumerary 22:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cbrown1023

edit

The Public Enemy

edit

I'd like to get it to a GA and would like to know what to expand on. Cbrown1023 21:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Expand the lead. Put in the excellent reception for the film, the release info (that it was cut down), the controversy about the grapefruit, perhaps mention that it was based off a book.
  • I added a boiler-plate fair use rationale for the poster. Check to see if the poster hasn't fallen into the public domain though.
  • Was Matt Doyle the other boy leaning against the wall?
    • What? Cbrown1023 23:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is what I meant. Here from the first paragraph "before directing the viewer’s attention to two boys growing up with the resultant lure of corruption". You mention that one of the boys is Tom, and then in the second paragraph you start talking about Tom and Matt. Am I supposed to assume that Matt was the other boy leaning against the wall with Tom? Hmmm, on a more careful reading this is indicate, but perhaps you could clarify it by saying "After Tom Powers (James Cagney) and the other boy, Matt Doyle (Edward Woods), grow into young adults".--Supernumerary 00:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early on it says that Tom Powers was played by Cagney, but then you say that Cagney's character smashes a grapefruit in his girlfriend's face and you parenthetically note who played her. Later on you say that Tom's girlfriend is played by someone else. Another girlfriend or a mistake?
  • "in which the character of real-life gangster Bugs Moran was cut out" A character based off of Bugs or did Bugs play a part?
  • You need to work Warner brothers in before you say "the studio promised" because I immediately though "Which studio?"
  • Add a closing spoiler tag.
  • Your ref citing is inconsistent in style (meaning sometimes you use the template, others you don't).
  • Consider adding a picture somewhere. That one site you linked has a plethora, and a photo of Cagney couldn't go amiss.

--Supernumerary 02:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The film was avoided by some because of its graphic elements."
What type of people avoided the film? Also, there should be a citation for this - people avoid films for many reasons. LuciferMorgan 02:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I passed a GA for this. Mind, remove the out-of-universe sentence at the end of the Plot section. Wiki-newbie 17:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"She Shoulda Said 'No'!"

edit

Ongoing attempt at bringing exploitation-era films to featured status. Any pointers or help would be greatly appreciated. A cast list is forthcoming, for the record. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supernumerary

edit
  • Is it really a semi-documentary? That term makes me think of the film showing actual events. More likely it is based on true events.
    • Semidocumentary is not my word.
  • Consider changing "played by Leeds" to a parenthetical (like:"(Leeds)") and wikilinking her name.
    • I think she's wikilinked before that point, but the rest, yes.
  • Split the Background into a Background and a Plot section.
  • "Kay via Franklin Productions filmed the production, like many similar movies of the era, in six days." might be changed to "Kay filmed the production for Franklin Productions in six days, like many similar movies of the era." The via just bothers me for some reason.
  • You already said it, but I'll say it anyway. Add the cast section.
  • More production info would be nice. When was it shot and how?
    • I'll see if I can find any info on this that isn't already there.
  • You might want to point out the poster has a naked woman depicted.
    • I was wondering what you were talking about, and then realized the other poster. I'll have to find out where that came from.
  • Reception does not mention any critics or reviews.
    • Only because I haven't found any (yet?).

Latter Days

edit

Wanting to take this to FA, but not sure what to do with it now. your thoughts would be good. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't think of anything, then you don't need to expand it. ;) Cbrown1023 15:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added fair use rationale, and one screenshot. Looks like I can't add another one under the fair use licences. Anything else? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but where are the rationales? I don't see either of them. Cbrown1023 22:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're in the <!- brackets, above each image code. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those say that there is a fair use rationle on the image page but there isn't. See Image:Publicenemyposter.gif for an example of a poster's rationale and Image:Grapefruit-james_cagney-mae_clark21a.jpg for an example of a screen shot's rationale. Cbrown1023 22:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right, OK. I've added fair use rationales to the actual images now. Is this OK? Do you have any other comments for how to improve the article for FA? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
good job... Cbrown1023 15:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just did a big copyedit of that page and renamed/moved some sectoins. You might want to check it for more/evaluate my changes, I'll come back with more suggestions in a minute. Cbrown1023 15:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They seem fine, under a cursory look. Thanks for that, and everything else you've suggested. I think once you're finished I will nominate for FA. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was concerned about that when I was first told to create a section, but I think it's cited OK now, and the one sentence that isn't is blatantly obvious and so doesn't need citation. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll nominate now then. Thanks for your help man - I've learnt new stuff from this peer review (like fair use rationales...). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coonskin (film)

edit

I'd like some general feedback on this article. How did I do? What needs to be done? (Ibaranoff24 19:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Pound Puppies and the Legend of Big Paw

edit

As I promised on my list of things to do, I've been spending the last few days of 2006 working on this article about a kids' film that very few have ever had the chance to watch. Without the DVD release of the film, the page would have looked more or less like this, and it would have taken forever to get it all done.

Everything has all been set, but, redlinks aside, a few things, like grammar and verification check-up in some places, would need to be done. To me, it looks so good, I just can't decide whether to put it up for GAC or FAC. What do you film fans make of it? --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 21:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reword this sentence: "Without protection of the Bone, humans would not understand what the Puppies are saying, and this power would be lost for good." Done.†
  • Red links in the lead need to be taken care of. Either make a stub, or unlink them. All done.‡
  • Check fair use rationales. The poster is missing the "This will not detract from sales, etc" reason. Done.‡
  • "It traces back to the Dark Ages" what does it refer to here? Clarified.†
  • Again many red links in the infobox. Already cleared.‡ Also could some of the producers be dropped from the box? Removed so that only the main ones show up.†
  • Trim the plot. It's a touch over a thousand words, which I think is really unnecessary for a children's film. Other plot issues:
    • "He rings a bell on their desk, asking them to hurry up. Another Pound Puppy, Reflex, hears it and begins smooching three of his friends at random, before McNasty stops him." Necessary? Removed.†
    • "The pup eavesdrops on McNasty's means: to transform his new "pets", and the rest of the Pound, into vicious guard dogs using his Mean Machine, so that he can protect the Bone of Scone." Confusing sentence. Reworded.†
    • "Whopper grabs one half, running off to prove his evidence." In what sense is prove being used here? Reworded.‡
    • Just who is Cooler? Clarified in ¶ #2 of the plot.‡
    • "Colette and Whopper plan to escape from their cage. After doing so, Whopper encounters a big creature stomping in their way, whom he believes is Big Paw. The two of them..." Whopper and the creature is the nearest antecedent, but I'm sure you mean Collete and Whopper. Reworded.‡
    • Okay, I just stopped reading the plot after the above sentence. None of your characters are introduced, so I'm lost in a sea of names. Just who are the Purries? It's never made clear. Clarified in lead section.†
  • If you introduce the characters properly, most of your cast section will be rendered redundant.
  • Cast style is inconsistent. Some voice actors are credited, some are not. Moved the voices to their own section.†
  • I really dislike the bolding, and I'm not alone. See here.
  • What other films were made that "featured established toy properties as their main characters"? A wikilink to the most popular one would be nice. Introduced three examples.†
  • The image placement seems random. What does Jeff and Tammy at the museum have to do with the VHS and DVD releases? Moved into the plot section.†
  • Why would you wikilink "As of 2006"? Delinked.†
  • Try to eliminate the see also section. (I notice that it links to other films like this, which answers one of my questions.) Removed.†
  • This is very nitpicky and I'm not sure if it will be an issue, but Wikipedia worries about linking to sites that are vague on copyright. I'm not sure how that effects the link to the trailer. I'd say don't worry about it, unless it comes up in the good article process.
  • Indicate whether the gross is American or Canadian dollars. Clarified.†
  • I'm not sure if the ratings box is necessary. If there's any remarkable exceptions to the G ratings, mention them but no need for a country by country listing of the same rating. Removed; information is already at IMDb anyway.†
  • I hope this did not come off too harsh. As a last note, I'd say go for Good Article status and then you might ask the reviewer if he thinks you should go for FA. Good luck! --Supernumerary 04:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

†Concerns addressed with this edit --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 01:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
‡Concerns addressed after this edit --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 01:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord of the Rings (1978 film)

edit

An interesting piece of filmmaking with an even more interesting backstory. Back in August, there wasn't a whole lot in the article, and it contained some statements that were either inaccurate or POV. I've spent some time working on improving it to standards. Any comments? What else needs to be done with this article? (Ibaranoff24 17:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I created a Cast section, but be sure to shrink the infobox's Starring section. Cbrown1023 20:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annamayya

edit

I've improved the article and hence expect a better rating.S.GaneshKumar 09:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll upgrade to start, but the real place for requesting an assessment is Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment#Requesting an assessment. :) This is for getting constructive feedback once you reach a B-Class. Cbrown1023 14:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving Las Vegas

edit

I have followed the style guidelines for this article, and hope to make Leaving Las Vegas a Good Article. I need to make sure that I am on the right track. Thank you, Crzycheetah 03:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Why did they choose that particular film gauge? Kaisershatner 15:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, compare with other FA films at WP:FA#Media.
Category:FA-Class film articles would be better. :) Cbrown1023 22:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cbrown1023

edit

Supernumerary

edit

The Little Shop of Horrors

edit

Famous and important cult film. Any thoughts on the article? (Ibaranoff24 07:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Supernumerary

edit
  • Less plot, more summary.
  • The lead is supposed to summarize the article, but this lead mentions the sequels, which never appear in the article proper.
  • The pictures really help the article, and they are properly licensed. Nice work there.
  • Standardize the cast section and move it up to after the plot per the style guidelines.
  • Use the cite web format for your sources.
  • Consider adding a "See also" section. (Roger Corman was the king of B-movies and should be put there.)
    • Um, try to avoid that... :) It's like a trivia section. A lot of people hate those (and trivia sections) and will be very sad to see it there. (by that I mean fail it for GA or not pass it on FA; they're real sticklers!!). Try to have all the links you need in the article itself. Cbrown1023 03:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links should be fleshed out with links to IMDB, rotten tomatoes, etc. Also, google video has the whole film uploaded, which definitely needs to be linked.
  • Does the film really star the 15 actors listed in the infobox? The article even says that Nicholson only had a bit part.
  • Wikilink full dates.
  • I second the reception section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Peer_review/2006&oldid=393219880"