Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Peer review/2007

Automated review

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 02:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Following the automated peer review, I would like to ask the League of Copyeditors to check the introduction to the list. I will do this later on, and wait for other comments first. – Ilse@ 07:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Girolamo Savonarola

All in all, it looks excellent and well sourced. However, my personal recommendation would be to consolidate this with the Platinum and Diamond lists - it wouldn't take much more work, since there aren't too many to date, and would allow the list to be fully comprehensive on the topic of Dutch ticket sales. Maybe the table could be extended to allow for rows for the dates of Platinum and Diamond achievement? Good work so far, though! Girolamo Savonarola 23:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. I have some questions, because I don't have a clear picture of what you meant with your recommendation.

This list was split off from the article Golden Film after subsequent requests during its featured article candidacy, because readers thought the article was too "listy". This list wasn't intended to give a comprehensive overview of Dutch tickets sales. The article section Cinema of the Netherlands#Box office should give this overview, including the four different box office awards in the Netherlands. Do you now recommend to change List of films that received the Golden Film into List of films that received a Dutch box office award?

In that case, I believe that films that received the three other box office awards, Crystal Film, Platinum Film, and Diamond Film, should be added. Some people think the films that only sold 100,000 tickets (Golden Film) are not yet successful, but films that sold over 400,000 tickets (Platinum Film) are successful.^[1] Also, the Crystal Film (for 10,000 tickets sold of Dutch documentary films only) is quite different from the Diamond Film (for 1 million tickets sold of any Dutch film). When the different lists are merged, this should not merely create a receptacle of lists instead of a more comprehensive list. How can this be avoided? – Ilse@ 08:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that it would make more sense to integrate the lists together - is there a specific problem were you to redefine the list into List of films receiving a Dutch box office award? Or something similar? You could always create a separate table for documentaries, which could include columns for Crystal and the other levels (if they've ever been reached by Crystal winners). Girolamo Savonarola 16:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It is rather simple to add the other awards to the current list, but I don't see how the proposed list is an improvement. I think the proposed list will loose transparency compared to the current one. If the purpose of the proposed list is to give an overview of Dutch box office results, I think a new list should be created, in which films are ordered by the number of tickets they've sold. – Ilse@ 20:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer review by Wisekwai

Peer review by Epbr123

Review by Awadewit

The biggest problem with the article is that it is not comprehensive (even in the GA sense). It does not address the themes of the film or the artistry of the film (apart from sound). Moreover, the article does not represent the published work on this film. In fact, it does not use any film scholarship at all. In a quick google scholar search, I found these works that would help the editors begin writing "Themes" and "Cinematic style" sections. These sources' bibliographies should also lead them to even more sources.

• Screening Geopolitics: James Bond and the Early Cold War films (1962-1967)
• The Politics of James Bond: From Fleming's Novels to the Big Screen
• Licence to Thrill: A Cultural History of the James Bond Films
• James Bond's “Pussy” and Anglo-American Cold War Sexuality
• The Changing Image of the Soviets in the Bond Saga: From Bond-Villains to "Acceptable Role Partners"
• Spyscreen: Espionage on Film and TV from the 1930s to the 1960s

• The lead should be a standalone summary of the article per WP:LEAD (please read carefully). The initial level of detail, I feel, is too high and loses the non-aficianado. A better job could be done alluding to the article's sections as well.
• The "Plot" section is much too long. Summarize more!
• The article is arranged, in my opinion, illogically. Shouldn't the plot summary come first in the article? It is odd to have "Production" - "Plot" - "Casting". Isn't "Casting" a part of production? Also, shouldn't the "Soundtrack" come somewhere before the "Reception"?
  •  Done I have done some in-merging. Nothing else will do. Vikrant Phadkay 15:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Must we have a cast list so prominently displayed in the middle of the article? Could it be moved to the end - there is really very little information there.
• The "Reception" section does not address the critical reception of the film at the time. What did film critics in newspapers say about it? How was it reviewed? Also, why do we care what the AFI ranked it? Explain to the reader the importance of these numbers or delete them.
• The article should be copy edited - there is a lot of repetitious diction and syntax.

With a lot of work put in by a few editors over the next few months, this article can be improved dramatically. Awadewit | talk 10:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Belovedfreak

• The lead needs expanding per WP:LEAD.
• Plot needs cutting down considerably, it's far too long at the moment.
• The section on production could do with expanding if possible, and needs citations.
• All the "citation needed" tags need to be addressed.
• The reception section could maybe be expanded with more about what film critics thought. I would also consider turning the awards section into prose.
• There needs to be a list of references / footnotes at the end of the article.

--Belovedfreak 13:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Belovedfreak

Good work so far, but some things I have noticed:

• It shouldn't really be necessary to have a US flag in the infobox next to Country, because you have the name of the country. You could, though, use a flag next to the release date, instead of (USA).
• I could be wrong, but I don't think you should need references in the lead section. The lead is just a summary of the rest of the article, so anything mentioned in the lead should be expanded, and cited, further down.
• In the lead, 1940's should be 1940s.
• The 1st sentence of the plot, "Set in an unnamed industrial town (Tulsa, Oklahoma, in Hinton's bookS.E. Hinton)..." doesn't make sense.
• The plot section is far too long. According to the Manual of style, it should be between 400 and 700 words long.
• It needs more categories, for example Country, language, genre.
• Could maybe do with a copyedit for some of the language. Eg.
  • "Suddenly, the Motorcycle Boy (Mickey Rourke) arrives and is quietly displeased with the renewed violence he worked to end"
  • "It is during conversation between Steve and an injured Rusty James that we learn how the Motorcycle Boy has been gone for two months, is 21 years old, colorblind, partially deaf, and noticeably aloof - the last trait causing many to claim he's got loose screws in the head"
  • "He fools around with another girl and is dumped by Patty, who quickly (too quickly) found out about his tryst."
• The movie poster needs a fair use rationale.
• The article switches between "the movie" and "the film". Might not matter, but personally I would just stick to one.

Hope this helps --Belovedfreak 15:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments by LordHarris

• Good work and ive got just a few points. Firstly in the lead, Cullen voiced Optimus in the 1980s cartoon, and returned by fan demand. I think this needs a reference to support. I assume its: Todd Gilchrist. "Exclusive: Peter Cullen Interview", IGN, 2007-06-08, the same reference for him slipping on an old pair of shoes but I think you should cite the fan demand.
• The following sentance seems a bit disjointed: To save money, Michael Bay cut his fee by 30%, chose to shoot in the United States with a crew he was familiar with,[46] doing more camera set-ups per day than usual[3] for an eighty-three day shooting schedule.[32] Couldnt this be two sentances? Starting a new sentance after the 46 reference. So for example To save money, Michael Bay cut his fee by 30% and chose to shoot in the United States with a crew he was familiar with. During the shoot he did more camera set-ups per day, than usual[3], for an eighty-three day shooting schedule.[32]
• Again with the following sentance: He practically made the film in computer animatics as a close guide for the five editors during the speedy shoot What do you mean by practically, either he made all of it or part of it? LordHarris 12:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Last two points are fixed. Alientraveller 20:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Erik

The content looks great to me. I spy mostly copy-editing issues that need to be fixed.

• "Transformers is a 2007 live action film based on the Transformers franchise, directed by Michael Bay and executive produced by Steven Spielberg." Re-word so it doesn't sound like that Bay and Spielberg weren't responsible for the franchise, but for the film.
• "It stars Shia LaBeouf as Sam Witwicky..." The film or the franchise? (Probably both, but in this case, "film" should be mentioned.)
• "...map to the Allspark, the center of the war between the heroic Autobots and the evil Decepticons." This makes Allspark sound like a place where the war takes place. Can some more detail be provided to indicate that it's an object?
• "Though not a fan, Bay was convinced by Spielberg to direct..." Specify what Bay wasn't a fan of, even though it may seem obvious to us. It may not be familiar to new readers.
• "Bay had support from General Motors and the United States military during filming, keeping the budget under $150 million." Re-word to have an action verb, such as, "General Motors and the United States military lent their support to Bay during filming..." (The action verb would be lent; it's a technique of writing to keep the reader engaged.)
• Under Cast's Shia entry: "...maturing into a soldier." Is this really accurate wording? It could be interpreted as literal, which wasn't the case.
• "...and has a criminal record as she refused to turn him to the authorities." Put "she" in between "and has", and write "him" as "her father" to make sure "him" is not confused with Sam.
• "Simmons is leading a team..." rewrite as "Simmons leads a team..." for consistency's sake.
• "Both she and her husband act as comic relief." This seems unnecessary, considering that a lot of characters were goofy, like Simmons.

I'll need to stop here 'cause I need to go somewhere, but I hope you can get an idea of what similar changes can be made to the article based on my suggestions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, done, but I felt the Mikaela description was ok. Alientraveller 20:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

More observations:

• "TV series voice actor Frank Welker auditioned, but was rejected as..." -- rewrite as, "TV series voice actor Frank Welker had auditioned, but he was rejected because..."
• "Welker voiced Megatron..." → "Instead, Welker voiced Megatron..."
• "In 2002, Hasbro began developing its properties..." Rewrite to briefly mention that Hasbro is a toy company, as not everyone will know of its background.
• "...when the U.S. invaded Iraq..." How about mentioning the year of the invasion for the sake of long-term chronology, to compare to the film's production?
• "Tom DeSanto joined the project as..." Replace as with because.
• Is Generation 1 supposed to be in italics? The article doesn't seem to indicate that, but it's italicized here.
• "...deciding to focus on the Creation Matrix." In what way? For the premise of the film?
• "DeSanto chose a human point-of-view in his treatment to engage the audience,[24] in various storylines resembling a disaster film, as Murphy wanted it to feel realistic.[7]" This is kind of choppy. How about something like, "DeSanto chose a human point-of-view in his treatment to engage the audience.[24] Various storylines were included to resemble a disaster film because Murphy wanted the film to feel realistic.[7]"
• "After they were rejected..." → "After the producers were rejected..." (Since we started a new paragraph, the subject should be re-identified.)
• "DeSanto met with Mike DeLuca" → "DeSanto met with producer Mike DeLuca" -- identify new figures briefly if possible to an unfamiliar reader. Spielberg should be fine, though, as he has a lot of positions and his direct role is identified as an executive producer in the next sentence.
• "...had the Ark spaceship." Replace had with an action verb, such as included or featured.
• "Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman" → "Screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman"
• "...were hired in February to start over." Write to be more clear, such as to start a new script.
• "Spielberg pitched it to them as about 'a boy and his car'..." → "Spielberg suggested to the writers an approach about 'a boy and his car'..." Just to clarify the "it" and "them"
• "Optimus Prime, Megatron, Bumblebee and Starscream were included in all their scripts,[29] but Sam and Mikaela were the focus of the first draft,[33] and the Transformers had no dialogue." This is a run-on sentence, there's two separations -- "and" and "but". Try to break it down into several sentences.
• "...the writers felt that even if it could look ridiculous..." → "the writers felt that even if the Transformers speaking could look ridiculous..." Identify the "it" since it's a bit far from the "dialogue" mention now.
• "...made him curious, and visiting Hasbro made him gain a new respect..." → "...made Bay curious, and upon visiting Hasbro, the director gained a new respect..." Just more subject identification.
• "Bay also wanted it to feel..." → "Bay also wanted the film to feel..."
• "...naturally, and make..." Remove the comma.
• "Orci cut the Ark..." → "Orci removed the Ark from the script..."
• "...to travel',[37] and Arcee..." End sentence after "travel", start new with Arcee. Also suggest identifying Arcee, like "The female Transformer Arcee..."
• "...with the soldiers based on G.I. Joe." → "based the soldiers on G.I. Joe." (action verb)
• "...the Autobot Prowl..." Maybe a brief identification of Prowl, such as "...the law enforcement-based Autobot Prowl..."?
• "Designs began in June 2005..." What designs? Mention that it's of the Transformers, since a lot of components can be designed in a film -- storyboards, costume, et cetera.
• "...three-dimensional,[35] as well as reflect their alien origins." → "three-dimensional[35] and to reflect their alien origins."
• "...stays the same size, which explains their choice..." Write stayed and explained, since we're writing from out-of-universe here.
• "...truck form was rejected as it would..." → "...truck form was rejected because it would..."
• "Don Murphy wanted to retain Bumblebee's Volkswagen Beetle form,[44] but Bay rejected it to avoid comparisons with Herbie the Love Bug,[45] and chose the Chevrolet Camaro instead, which he described as having a friendly quality.[6]" Another run-on sentence with "but" and "and". Try to break into two sentences.
• "Bumblebee is a 1977 Yellow Chevy Camaro..." Should be past tense since it's OOU, and say "was based on", perhaps.
• You mention "morphing" twice in Design, I noticed, and you might want to briefly explain that to readers unfamiliar with how Transformers morphed in the cartoons.
• "The official names were confirmed in August 2006,[40] although Bay himself was not fully aware of these official names,[46] and this led to Brawl being referred to as Devastator, his on-set name.[49]" While this isn't a run-on sentence, it's a bit long and could be broken into two.
• "During post-production, fans expressed concern over Megatron's head design, so a last-minute tweak was done to satisfy them." Can it be specified what the issue with the head design was, and how it was fixed?
• "...cut his fee by 30%" How about directing salary?
• "...with a crew he was familiar with..." Redundant "with". Try, "...with a familiar crew..."
• "...at that time." → "...at the time."
• "Such co-operation..." → "The cooperation..." (Is co-operation UK spelling? It's cooperation in the US.)
• "A pre-shoot took place on April 19, 2006, before principal photography began on April 22..." → "A pre-shoot took place on April 19, 2006, and principal photography began on April 22..." Using "before" seems unnecessary, it's a pre-shoot.
• "...making them the first film crew to shoot there since 9/11." → "...making the film crew the first to shoot there since 9/11." Just shuffle the words to avoid "them" before you actually identify who.
• "...it finally finished..." → "...it concluded..." Using "finally" makes it sound like they had issues staying on schedule or something.
• "...with Michael Bay and Steven Spielberg conceived..." → "...and Michael Bay and Steven Spielberg provided..."
• "Three versions of each car were created by General Motors..." Just to clarify, are we talking about all the Transformers vehicles, all the Autobot vehicles, or all the Autobot vehicles classified as a car? It hasn't been said in the article what cars GM provided besides the Pontiac Solistice (The Cast section doesn't really mention which ones are from GM, either).

Man, I'm gonna take a break now... haha. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The last step is beyond me, I'll let you edit that. So there's a lot of shuffling due to this copyedit, especially since citations don't tell me the whole story. But that's what the DVD's for I guess. Alientraveller 20:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Erik

• The first issue for this article are the use of non-free images. Images, especially the non-free kind, need to be more than decoration for the article. Considering this is a film whose themes and cinematic style has been commented on by many, it would be best to remove the seemingly decorative images and create prose to describe the themes/style. Off the top of my head, I recall that the framing of the Western background through a door from the inside was thematically significant. If prose can be provided, a shot of this cinematic style would be warranted. I would suggest checking out Wikipedia:Non-free content to understand how to implement such images.
• For Themes, I would suggest using more academic resources (like the ones I listed on the article's talk page) to cover the themes of the film. The current references are rather simple reviews, and I believe that using in-depth critical interpretations from those with film studies backgrounds would be much stronger attribution.
• For Cast, I would suggest using an Actor as Character format followed by a brief description of the character, as well as any information about how that particular actor was cast or how he or she portrayed his/her role. I would not be surprised if there was some controversy over the Native American casting, considering their depictions in the film.
• I would suggest removing the Release section because a list of release dates is indiscriminate and does not serve much encyclopedic value. If there was a reason for the selection of dates for territories outside of the United States, then it may warrant a mention. For example, Spider-Man 3 was released in China before the United States in order to circumvent piracy.
• For Reception, I would suggest starting off with a prose paragraph. Perhaps a list of recognitions would be warranted, but ideally, prose should be attempted before a list.
• For Influence, there needs to be attribution about the influence of The Searchers on succeeding films. The Star Wars and Dominion mentions seem to be original research and should be backed by a secondary source.
• I would suggest a Critical reaction section, both citing reviews given at the time and contemporary reviews, to reflect any change of opinion in the process.

These are my suggestions for now; there's obviously plenty to do. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to ask! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Stillstudying

I agree with all the above.

• On images, we do need to use those in the public realm which have great symbolic importance. For instance, as to the image of Ethan standing in the door, offhand I cannot remember the source, (but I will find it!) but a number of critics have suggested the symbolism is that Ethan is the eternal outsider, and having returned Debbie to civilization, stands alone in the door, and walks into the wild, symbolizing that his task being done, he is not part of the civilization he ostensibly champions. Still others suggest his blatant racism and hatred for practically everyone figures in his standing in the door, and walking away, as not belonging anywhere. Obviously this is a tremendously important image, and needs more explanation for those not familiar with the movie and it's symbolism.
• As to using academic sources, I would add that we have many critical reviewers who make very deep examinations of the issues Ford approached so gingerly in this movie. I agree with Erik that we need to use those, such as Brenton Priestley's explosive "Race, Racism and the Fear of Miscegenation."
• We do need to completely revamp the cast section, with an explanation of what the role of each is in terms of the symbolism of the movie. For instance, several characters are simply there for comic relief. Whether that was because Ford was afraid otherwise the movie would be unbearably bleak is a subject we can discuss, citing respectable scholars.

Personally, i would prefer to have consensus before the rewrite begins. Does anyone else wish to do the rewrite? I am willing to do so, but again, would like consensus that the type of changes Erik suggests, which I agree with, are the view of the majority of editors. That way we can avoid a great many reverts! Stillstudying 14:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that your plan for improvement will be much stronger than anything that has come before for this article. I would suggesting being bold in making the changes; they can only benefit the article, I'm sure. (And if anyone attempts to add a Trivia section, remove it and kindly point them at WP:AVTRIV.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Erik I will give this a couple of days, and then begin being being bold in making the changes. I think your suggestions are outstanding, and I will start, (if no one else more experienced comes along and wants to do it, or has good reasons we should not), with revamping the introduction, and the cast, while similtanously removing the images that have no meaning, while replacing them with those that do, along with an explanation for why they are there. I am going to work today and tomorrow on these changes, and again, waiting for input here, will begin a wholesale revamp based on what we have discussed, late tomorrow. I really appreciate your support. I strongly feel this is a genuine classic that has been badly served by our article, and that needs to change. Stillstudying 14:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Erik I would really appreciate your and Alien's input on the new section I just added. I was extremely careful - I worked a large part of the night on this! - to source everything and try to avoid anything super controversial, and stick to accepted language. I would really appreciate your evaluation on that new section and the updates on the cast, added language on the characters. If this is acceptable, I plan to work on the Production section next, and then finally delete meaningless pictures and add ones with great meaning - like him standing in the door! - with an explanation of why they are important. Your help is really appreciated! Stillstudying 12:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Further comments by Erik

Looks like you've put some serious work into it! A few formatting notes:

• For section titles, only the first letter should be capitalized, unless a later word is proper. So basically, Critical Interpretations → Critical interpretations
• There should not be any spacing between a sentence's punctuation and the reference.
• Try to use the Cite web, Cite news, and the Cite journal templates for your references. This provides easy, organized reading of the references.
• The format of a film title in the content should just be with italics, with no quotation marks needed. So basically, "The Searchers" → The Searchers
• It seems that the "Real-life inspiration" section should become part of The Searchers (novel) since the source material and its film adaptation are not always the same. What should be noted, though, is if the adaptation was faithful, or what changes John Ford made to the story. This should be done with independent, attributable sources instead of personal observations, which is original research.
• The Themes section could be merged into the Critical interpretations section. Try to see if you can subsection different critical interpretations, such as Racism and Characterization. Not sure what more there are. Obviously, with so much critical coverage of this film, this shouldn't be the end of it.
• For Cast, try to format it like below:

• John Wayne as Ethan Edwards: A Confederate veteran of the American Civil War who comes to see his brother's family after being gone for three years. (Add detail about Wayne's casting or portrayal here, with attribution.)

• I would suggest just going ahead and removing the images now. They don't serve any purpose for the article besides being decorative.
• In Critical interpretations, I would suggest that you re-read what you wrote and try to edit the content to have a more neutral tone. Some of the sentences sound casually written when they should be more formal. An example is, "This horrible outburst made clear that..." and could be rewritten not to use the word "horrible" and something more encyclopedic than "made clear". Hope you understand the suggestions I've made.

Good luck with the Production section! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Erik (talk • contrib Thanks, and I will get started...Stillstudying 13:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Erik (talk • contrib Thanks for your help, and I would appreciate your checking out the new sections, (I took your advice and incorporated the theme section into critial interpretations, and subdivided. I also took your advice and deleted the pictures, and worked more on the character descriptions and the production section. I am gone for a few hours, but would appreciate your evaluation of the work on the article so far...) thanks again.Stillstudying 17:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Further Comments by Stillstudying

Monkeyzpop To Monkey, I moved your assertation that the strongest motivator for Ethan is his love for his brother's wife to where it properly should be, to the "plot" section - This is discussed by many reviewers as underlying emotion throughout the movie, but it hardly stands as a "theme" in the sense Ford's examination of racism does! While I may agree iwth you - I do think he may well be in love with her, please, whether or not Ethan's character was in love with his brother's wife is a plot twist not a grand theme in the movie. What "theme" would you maintain this shows? Racism is an obvious and incredibly powerful theme for the movie, but love for your brother's wife as a theme? I am not trying to be cruel, but surely you see the problem, not only is this not a theme in the sense of an underlying socio-cultural more, it isn't even certain. The question of Ethan's feelings for his brother's wife has been debated considerably for the last 41 years. For every source you cite that claims this as a theme, others do not. Schneider, for instance, doesn't even consider it worthy of discussing in the same context as the giant themes of hatred and racism. Morever, you miscite your sources - they do discuss the underlying question of whether Ethan loved his brother's wife, but again, this is simply not a socio-cultural theme in the same league with racism!

• So I moved this entire mess to "plot" which is where it belongs. I also set to work to correct a number of other things you deleted or changed improperly. For instance, the opening should be 3 paragraphs, and you deleted an outstanding quote by Schneider which explains why the movie is not really from the book, but from real life.

• Finally, while I hope we can resolve our differences without an edit war, your swift reverting and the way you did so, without discussion - we do have a peer review going on, that you did not bother to post any of your proposed changes - I would remind you of the 3 edit rule. If you change this 3 times in 24 hours, you should be suspended. I will revert as I have to, unless a majority discusses these issues, and you have consensus for your changes - which I don't believe you have. I have asked others for their input, and will wait on consensus, in the interim, you have reverted twice in 24 hours, a third time warrants suspension. Stillstudying 11:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just noticed your edit summary comment when you reverted me, "What do you think we have peer review for?" It should be noted that nowhere on the main article page nor on the page that comes up for editing the main article does it say a peer review is under way. How is one to know that without a notice on either the article page or the editing page? Monkeyzpop 22:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Further Comments by Monkeyzpop

I have done my best to eliminate original research from my submissions and have cited where proper. Notwithstanding, having studied this film for forty years, written about it, been published on the topic, interviewed many of the players and crew, and collected possibly the largest private collection of material relating to the film, I obviously have some sense of awareness of the film and its background, themes, and the critical responses it has gotten over the years. Forgive me if I am not as fully confident in your take on things, especially as simple matters such as grammar, spelling, and formatting cause you some difficulty. This is not an insult, rather an observation that one's first look at your submissions makes one wonder how strong your academic credentials are. But that's not as important as reaching a clear-cut encyclopedic version for Wikipedia of what this film is and what the responses to it are. Let's take some of your objections one at a time. But first: let me apologize about the three-revert rule. I was thinking of reverting the material on this page in one fell swoop, but found it physically easier to do it section by section. If I'd done it all as one revert, I'd have not broken the 3RR. I forgot about that. Sorry. (I do note that you, Stillstudying, edited the same page 23 times within 48 hours, a clear and pretty large violation of 3RR itself. ;-) ) Now on to your objections. You've asked for peer review. That's fine. But peer review does not mean no one can edit a page without "permission" or consensus. It just means you're asking for and (hopefully) receiving commentary. Some of the peer review comments about my submissions make sense to me. Others don't. But the first "rule" of Wikipedia, the one that is trumpeted loudly whenever someone new comes aboard, is "If you don't want your material edited brutally, don't submit it." ANYONE can edit a page, whether that page is under peer review or controversy. So I'm sorry if you're unhappy that someone has "edited your material brutally" but there's nothing wrong with that, not by my reading of the rules of Wikipedia. Next: the fact that John Ford "never talked" about Ethan's love for Martha is both wrong and irrelevant. He certainly talks about it -- on-camera! -- in Bogdanovich's Directed by John Ford, but the main point is that Ford doesn't have to be on record talking about something for it to be relevant to the article. As you will note, I referenced about eight different citations regarding the Ethan/Martha love and how it is the unspoken but driving force of the story. That takes nothing away from the racism theme; in fact, it's absolutely interwoven into it and inextricable from the racism theme: Ethan loves Martha, already-hated Indians kill Martha and steal her child, Ethan seeks revenge for Martha, rescue for her child, and then purifying death for the child once Indians have defiled it. The fact that the love between Ethan and Martha has been a topic of scholarly discussion for fifty years is both verifiable and notable. To discard it shows a comparative unfamiliarity with the film's historical analysis and criticism. It's like throwing out all references to outer space in an article on Star Wars just because no one actually says "outer space" in the movie. Next: some of the items I deleted were deleted only because you say them in almost identical words three, four, or five times. In the case of these repetitive items, I did not delete all of them, just the redundant one or misplaced ones. I'm under the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that you think anyone who would dare change what you wrote must be wrong or deliberately interfering. I assure you I am not deliberately interfering, and in this case I don't believe I'm wrong. I've been a published author for many, many years, and before that an English composition teacher. That doesn't make me God, but it makes me fairly well credentialed to critique writing style. I appreciate your efforts, and some of your points are quite wonderful. But your writing style can use some help, and I have tried to help (not so much help you as to help Wikipedia, which to be trustworthy should at least be as well-written as possible). Next: I've spent a lot of time with the LeMay book, and while it differs from the film in notable ways, to say that it "does not resemble the movie at all," as you did, is to ignore willfully what is in the book. Of course the book resembles the film: it has the same characters. It has the same locale. It has the same basic plotline of loss and rescue. These are resemblances! Even if the book takes liberties or detours from the detail of the novel, to say there is no resemblance is demonstrably erroneous. The fact, and I bow to your research on this, that the filmed version may indeed resemble MORE CLOSELY the Cynthia Parker story is no reason to state that it thus bears no resemblance to the book. No one who has experienced both the book and the film is going to take you seriously if you purport that. And I don't believe I edited anything of yours to suggest that the Parker story is not more relevant to the film. I only changed your POV that the book is IRRELEVANT to the film, and suggested that there is a middle ground. Which there is! Clearly these are matters of opinion, which, in Wikipedia terms, means that we can state that there ARE differing opinions (citing them is good), but we cannot insist that one opinion is the ONLY one, which is what you are doing in denying a relationship between the book and the film. You may believe that. I may believe differently. But neither of us can say that the other opinion doesn't exist or is wrong. You bolster your argument by citation, not deleting. I believe I have adhered to Wikipedia rules and tried to bring an objective awareness of this film which I have spent my life studying to this page. You can argue with my placement of certain things. But to insist that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong (which if not in so many words is very much the tone of your edit summaries and talk page contributions on this subject) is quite the antithesis of what Wikipedia aspires to be. Monkeyzpop 21:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Further comment: referring to someone else's cited and well-formed submission, whether you agree with it or not, as "this mess" is counterproductive. And I am unaware of a rule stating that openings "should be 3 paragraphs." Please point me to that Wikipedia instruction. And yes, I deleted your quotation regarding the book/movie connection from the opening, as it was repeated several times throughout the article and is not STYLISTICALLY proper for the opening, which should -- from a good writing standpoint -- be a précis of clear definition, not detail. The Wikipedia entry on Film doesn't (and shouldn't) read "Film is a term that encompasses individual motion pictures, the field of film as an art form, and the motion picture industry. Films are produced by recording images from the world with cameras, or by creating images using animation techniques or special effects. The rise of European cinema was interrupted by the breakout of World War I while the film industry in United States flourished with the rise of Hollywood. However in the 1920s, European filmmakers such as Sergei Eisenstein and F. W. Murnau, along with American innovator D. W. Griffith and the contributions of Charles Chaplin, Buster Keaton and others, continued to advance the medium." No, it opens with the first two sentences and saves the detail for later. (Sorry for the long example.) And finally, my "swift" reverting? This is the first time I've ever edited this page, to my memory. I just happened on your changes and edited the page. And I only did it once. You'll notice that even now, though I'm in vehement disagreement with you on several points, I've not re-reverted. Let it stand and let's get some more discussion. I'm glad you don't want an edit war. I don't either. But you seem to be quite willing to presume that's where I'm coming from. I'm not. I just know this film, have huge resources for citing references to it, and want to help, without promoting a POV that I cannot support from other sources. I hope that's acceptable to you. Monkeyzpop 21:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Monkeyzpop I am sorry you chose to take this tact. However, I should not have written I felt your edits were poor, that was uncalled for, so I will take a lighter tact in responding, and hope we can avoid this sort of unpleasantness. First, let me say in plain english that I never said I was right and anyone who disagrees with me wrong - if you read my messages to other editors I have worked with, you would find the opposite to be true, that I seek consensus, and seek third or fourth party opinions when my work differs from someone elses in order that I may find whether mine is lacking. You left a somewhat different message on my talk page, which I responded to differently, and would hope that message would govern our responses. Frankly, I always sigh when someone begins to trumphet their academic achievements. I was educated in the good old law, to answer your question, not as a movie reviewer. But I have a degree in history also, (and another in legal studies), I suppose that qualifies me about as much as you to write an article on this film. To get to the issues and avoid more personal nastiness. First, I never suggested that there is NO relationship between the LeMay book and the Ford movie, I said that there was no nexus to point to except Brit Johnson did rescue his family by ransoming them. I think that needs to be pointed out, and I was careful to cite the close relationship between cold hard facts of the Parker saga and the Ford movie - Schneider said it better than I ever could! I wrote, and mean it, that I seek to work with you and craft an article we both can agree on, rather than engage in an edit war. I note that your edit summary in answering Erik's reversion was at least as tactless as mine. But I don't feel that we have to engage in this sort of unpleasantness, or "how many college degrees do you have, because I have three and that means WHAT?" (I have to admit amusement that you are a published author - I have articles published in the "real world" also, and I taught history in Texas, before the law seized on me! Your insinuations I lack your education please, the personal attacks on my academic credentials - it brings to mind the old saw, if you have the law, cite it, if you have the facts, recite them, if you have neither, call names. I will post this also on the peer review page. I say in closing that I respectfully ask you to not attack me personally - the worst thing I can be acused of in this disagreement is saying I thought your edits were poor. You, on the other hand, stated I am uneducated, (without a clue what my education is), rather suggested I said things I plainly did not, and made this quite personal. I think your attack on me speaks for itself. But I believe we can do differently, if you cease the personal attacks. By the way, the 3RR rule applies to such situations as ours, where one editor reverts the other without discussion and reverts 3 times in 24 hours. You can edit 1000 times in 24 hours if the edits are not reversions. Stillstudying 02:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Finishedwithschool

I have looked at the article, and the suggested changes by Stillstudying, and Monkeyzpoop. I think his suggestion that John Wayne's character being in love with his sister in law is possible, and a lot of reviewers agree with him, so it is reasonable to put it in the article, but not in the critical interpretation section, certainly. I also think it is no "theme" in the cinematic and/or novel sense of the word, and it is better off in the plot section. The entry paragraphs should be extended, and I like the comment by the reviewer talking about the movie and Cynthia Parker. Finishedwithschool 17:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Finishedwithschool. Monkeyzpop was kind enough to point out numerous spelling and gramatical errors which I have corrected. I hope he feels the placement of the love Ethan has for Martha in the plot is a better fit. Does anyone else have anything, other than I need to find a public picture of Ethan standing in the door - that pictures really sums up Ethan, alone by fate and choice after completely the mission that drove his life. Don't you wonder if he had anything left to live for, after fixating his entire existance on the search for so many years, as James Parker poured his entire life into his search for his niece? Stillstudying 02:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests for review of changes by Stillstudying

Erik (talk • contrib),Monkeyzpop, Finishedwithschool, Alien, I would really appreciate a review of the updated article. I have redone the article in toto, adding a production section, and making the other changes as we have discussed as a group on this page. I have added a number of relevant photos with explanations, and am looking for a fair use photo of Ethan standing in the door at the movie's end, so we can add that, complete with discussion of it's relevance, (him as the eternal outsider, his mission complete he has no place in the civilized home, etc.) Are there other major changes that anyone sees we need to do? Erik? Alien? Monkey is out of town, and will weigh in when he returns. Anyone else? How does everyone like the article now? Stillstudying 13:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Evaluation of changes oldwindybear

Nice job of rewriting. You managed to address the lack of a production section, and did what I believe is a very nice job of creating a good critical interpretation section. I liked the pictures you put in, liked the comments, and felt all in all you raised the article from a B to a GA, but that is my personal opinion! old windy bear 17:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Lenin & McCarthy

First, try to find some way of merging the "Book of Amon-Ra" section into the main text of the article.

I ended up cutting it out completely. It wasn't really necessary. --J.D. 20:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Second, the picture in the plot summary doesn't really illustrate the text well. I thought that in the film they actually had a creepy-looking CG mummy. Perhaps a picture of him would be better.

Removed picture. --J.D. 20:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Third, there are still a few sentences in the "production" section that don't have a citation. To get this to GA that will have to be remedied.

Fourth, the reception section doesn't really have a proper comment on the general perception of the film. Something like "reviews were mixed, with critics commenting on (whatever they took note of)" that may incorporate some of the quoted reviews. The rating aggregation sites will also need citations.--Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Erik

• Fraser and Weisz should be wiki-linked in the Plot section like everyone else. Wiki-links can be redundant for each new section.
• Is there a need for Characters related to The Mummy? It seems that any important actions by the characters would already be mentioned in Plot, and a brief background description can be provided for each character in Cast. Also, can the Cast section be expanded to have some detail about the casting of each actor or how they carried out their role? (For example, is Rick O'Connell based on anyone real or fictional? Why was Arnold Vosloo chosen as the antagonist?)
• The picture of Rachel Weisz as Evelyn at the beginning of Production seems purely decorative; she's already displayed with the other protagonists in Cast. I suggest removal of this image. If you want to break the monotony of the text, I would suggest implement quoteboxes (see Aaron Sorkin) of any significant quotes.
• I see the Casting section now. Could this be merged into Cast? It would make the Cast section more than just a dry list.
• Is there a need for the Soundtrack section for The Mummy? If it was notable, it would be better to mention critical reaction to the music, and background to the music, instead of the track listing and the soundtrack template.
• Reception should reflect when the first festival release of this film, if any, took place, and also the opening date of this film (which does not seem to be mentioned here). I would also cite the editing in England, which I assume was done by the BBFC. Also, it may be an issue to quote three reviewers at length. There are better ways to write a Critical reaction section, in my opinion -- see Spider-Man 3#Critical reaction.
• In External links, I don't think that the Angelfire.com link is appropriate for inclusion.

Hope you can make use of my suggestions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Erik

• The lead section should have only two or three full paragraphs.
• The Plot section should be under 900 words per WikiProject Films' style guidelines.
• There needs to be a Production section to reflect in more detail about how this project got started. When was the idea first introduced? Was the project fast-tracked to production? Why did Spielberg join the project; why did Hanks?
• There does not need to be so much "historical background" about the actual events if there is already an article on it.
• Filming locations should be combined with the new Production section, since it is a part of the process.
• Portrayal of combat could be renamed to something else, since there were adjustments that weren't combat-related (like the tank models and the change of division). Not sure if this section could be broken up into actual details of production and criticism of the historical presentation (which would go under Reception).
• The article could use an image that would illustrate as many of the main characters (especially Hanks' and Damon's characters) as possible, as well as the D-Day invasion scene, which seems (at least, from my readings) to be the most talked-about scene in the film.
• Reception section could be more detailed; some questions below to answer:

• When and where was its world premiere?
• When and where was its US premiere (was the first US showing commercial or at a festival)?
• Is there any information about how many other countries the film was showed in?
• The specific percentage at Rotten Tomatoes could be included, as well as specific reviews covering the pros and cons of the film.
• What did British and German reviewers think of the film?
• Any WWII historians that reviewed the film? (Take a look at Apocalypto -- poorly structured article, but there are quite a few reviews of that film by historians.)
• "...being one of a few that have won the Best Director award without also winning Best Picture" is not addressed at the IMDb citation and probably not addressed at the Academy's official list, either. A citation should be found to support this observation.

• References should have citation templates applied to them -- see Template:Cite news and Template:Cite web.
• Some areas that may need to be covered:

• Is there anything encyclopedic about the VHS or DVD release of the film? Did it have anything that was left out of the theatrical release? Was it successful with VHS/DVD sales and rentals?
• Wasn't the film aired on TV uncut? I don't know if I'm confusing this with Schindler's List, but this may be a similar controversy that could be addressed.
• How were casting decisions made, especially for Hanks and Damon?
• I would suggest taking a look at the film's IMDb trivia; there is some information that could be followed up on and integrated into the article (not as trivia, of course) with citations attached. There is some casting talk on that page, but I don't know if it's true.

Feel free to respond to my suggestions, and I'll add further commentary. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

My only problem with the IMDB trivia suggestion is it's a Wiki itself and anyone can add to it. I'm not sure that part's a valid source.--Lepeu1999 00:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree; what I meant was to use it as a guideline to see if that information exists out there, and not cite IMDB directly. Just follow up on some of the information if you have time, such as Mel Gibson and Harrison Ford being considered for the role of Captain John Miller. I've found that some trivia bits have some grain of truth to them, as I found with some things for Spider-Man. Of course, never cite the trivia page for IMDb directly, just take keywords and see if you can find matching information at an attributable source. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Cast list should be set out in Actor as character syle with a small bit of info about them. Buc 16:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The images also need fair use rationales. See passed GA/FAs film articles for examples. --Nehrams2020 04:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Belovedfreak

THe article seems quite comprehensive and there's a lot of interesting information in there but there are some problems I've noticed:

• All images used in the article need Fair use rationales.
• You need to use proper citation templates for your references.
• There are quite a lot of statements in there that still needs referencing. Also, you might need to find some better sources. You seem to be quite reliant on the trivia section of IMDb and that's not a very reliable source.
• Phrases like "Many considered this to fall very short of expectations..." need cleaning up and to have sources. We need to know who exactly you're talking about. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words.
• One small point about the plot - is it really necessary to mention "During the confrontation, she unfolds her legs to reveal she is not wearing any underwear..."? I know that this scene is probably the most famous thing about the film, but it seems to kind of stick out in the plot, it's not really relevant to the story. I don't know if you could find somewhere else in the article to mention it.
• Phrases in the plot like "This is his way of feeling empowerment." sound like Original research.

I hope some of this helps. --Belovedfreak 10:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• The lead section feels overwhelming I think. Before you even get to the main section. Whataboutbob 18:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Lenin and McCarthy

Just a few things I saw.

• In production, perhaps specify the "Bite fight" rather than just link to Mike Tyson. And maybe change "big breasts" to "large breasts".
• A citation may be needed for the narrator being named "Jack" in the script. And someone might even want the page number for when the narrator is in the asylum.

And maybe a few more of the aticles in references should be linked, if possible. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• I revised the wiki-link about the bite to lead to The Bite Fight, but piped it to say, "Mike Tyson's act" to make it directly clear without having to visit the wiki-link to understand.
• The Empire citation for the aliases also applies to "Jack" being in the script.
• I'll try to find the page number for the mental asylum, though I don't have the book available to me right now.
• A number of the references used for the film article came from magazines. However, they've been made available online (illegally, I believe) here, so I hesitated to wiki-link to them. Any suggestions about that?

Keep the tips coming! :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Support All the ingredients for a GA -good work! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 12:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Crzycheetah

• The Cast section needs to go after Production

Done!

• I don't like the placement of the Image:01 quills.jpg. Maybe it can go under the Cast section.

I agree. I'd actually kind of forgotten about that image. Done, and considering making it a bit bigger.

• Keep WP:CITE in mind when adding the refs.

Bah! This is so hard to find after the fact! I found a few instances with spaces in between the words and one with extra punctuation. Doh. Habit.

• Get rid of the "HTML"'s from the references. 90% of the online sources are in html format, so I don't see any need to point that out.

I just copied the template verbatim, but yeah, unnecessary information. I did keep the format description for the one that's a PDF file, since that's less common.

• Try to find a substitute to the imdb sources. IMDB is considered an unreliable source when it comes to business data.

Should I replace all the IMDb sources? It's not necessarily impossible, but kind of tough. I can, however, get rid of the IMDb business data listing, since the boxofficemojo.com listing has the same exact information.

I would recommend to change all imdb sources.

Changed IMDb Film Locations ref to MovieLocations.com ref, Full Cast List ref to Yahoo!Movies cast list ref, simply removed soundtrack ref as unnecessary, kept release date ref as is irreplaceable, changed Marat/Sade IMDb synopsis ref to an official MGM ref. Yahoo!Movies cast list is easier to navigate and more complete (it looks like), MovieLocations.com is v. in-depth and really the only other place I could find with the information

• You have two {{spoiler}} tags without {{endspoiler}}. Fix that.

Done! Do you have any idea how many times I have noticed this and forgotten to fix it?

• Is there a reason why the subsections of Reaction use Level 4 headings?

Er, because I was equal sign happy? Fixed.

• Oh and the critical reception under Reaction needs to be the first subsection, in my opinion.

All right! I bow to your superior experience!

These were the problems I noticed. I don't see any major issues in this article, other than the reference problems I stated. Good luck in WP:GAC.

Thank you so much for your input and keen eyes!

Crzycheetah 19:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Erik

• There should be 2 or 3 lead paragraphs. No film article of Featured status has 4 lead paragraphs.

Addressed by Ringworm. Count Ringworm 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• I assume there's a reason why the Plot section isn't expanded?
• In the Infobox Film template, there's too many names listed under "starring". This attribute is meant for those who have top billing (such as Downey and Gyllenhaal), and from what I've seen, the list shouldn't exceed five names, unless it's an ensemble film like Bobby. Instead, is it possible to create a Cast section? A straightforward list of actors/roles could be created, or you could add descriptions to the characters, which may help avoid being long-winded in the Plot section down the road. (Note: You can also embed the actors' names like I did at Fight Club, but since this is a film with multiple roles, I think a Cast section would be more easily read.)

Addressed by Ringworm. Count Ringworm 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• The Research subsection should be entitled the Development section, as more things happen in that subsection than research -- seeking financing, getting help from sources who dealt firsthand with the Zodiac killer.

Addressed by Ringworm. Count Ringworm 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• I would recommend "Principal photography" being re-titled to "Filming", and "Post-production" to "Editing" -- they seem to be better titles for the stages of production that the film goes through.

Addressed by Ringworm. Count Ringworm 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know if there's a reason for this, but I see numerous paragraphs that don't have citations for sentences at the end. I don't know if the citation is included in the next paragraph, but if there's a break like that, there should be a citation located at the end of a paragraph. An example is the last sentence in the first paragraph of Research. If it's from citation #3, which is the next citation mentioned in the second paragraph, then you should duplicate the reference so the sentence in question has the reference at the end of it. Hope that makes sense.
• Overall, I notice in the Production section that there are many quotes, more than what seems necessary. My rule of thumb is that quotes should be used if they are opinionated but still contribute something to the article. If there are quotes that describe something that's been done in production, then it should probably be written in prose. Some examples below:

*"...got sucked into the Zodiac lore, much like he did and much like a lot of people have. I tried to translate that into the script." This can be rewritten more tightly as prose.

*"...the case had taken on its own mythic proportions over the years, and it was our job to undo all that. To draw a clean line between fact and fiction." Could be rewritten as prose.

*"there are no car chases in it. People talk a lot in it. It’s about a cartoonist and a murderer who never got caught. So, yeah, the studio is nervous." Could be rewritten as prose, like, "The studio was concerned about the heavy dialogue and the lack of action scenes, as well as the inconclusive nature of the story arc." There are more instances of quotes that could either be removed or rewritten in prose.

• I think in general, there may need to be some copy-editing done for the writing. Some sentences strike as clumsy, such as, "Once he knew the camera’s limitations only then did Savides feel comfortable with it." Also, parentheses should be avoided wherever possible. For example, "Not all of the cast was happy with Fincher’s exacting ways and perfectionism (some scenes required upwards of 70 takes)..." could be rewritten so parentheses aren't used.
• Reception should begin with where Zodiac premiered. The first sentence about Variety doesn't tell me the date of its world premiere, and after that, I'm already reading reviews of the film. When was Zodiac first commercially released? I think it's usually best to start out Reception sections with numbers, such as box office performance and number of theaters (if it's relevant), because that's an initial objective approach to the film's performance. Then the critical reaction can follow afterward. Also, I would suggest removing the IMDb user poll because since they are not bona fide polls, there is no guarantee that there is no vote-stacking involved. For example, 300 had 2,000 votes that put it up the Top 250 at IMDb, before the film even came out.
• In the external links, are there any links that the film's Wikipedia article already addresses? External links should be for supplementary content, so if most of a link's content is used in the article, it probably doesn't need to be kept.

Addressed by Ringworm. Count Ringworm 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• The images need fair use rationale. Also, two images are misidentified as screenshots -- the one with Fincher in the frame, filming the scene, and the other with the side-by-side VFX comparison.

You have a lot of good content established in the article already, but I think it's a matter of molding it into a more encyclopedic structure. Feel free to comment on my critique, and I'll explain my reasoning for my suggestions if I need to. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment The length of the lead isn't overly long. It does contain several stubby paragraphs, which could be condensed in number. Quadzilla99 16:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the suggestions! I will get to work improving this article with these comments as helpful guidelines. Count Ringworm 18:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Lenin & McCarthy

• You might not need to put so much emphasis in the lead section on the Wachowski Brothers doing The Matrix. It just doesn't seem too relevant IMPO.
  • Ok, I took that out. Belovedfreak 11:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• The second half of the plot summary seems unclear at some points. The explanation of the plot in paragraph 5 could possibly be simplified. Aside from that, mostly just small things would be needed (i.e. why does Micky come? what specifically does Violet implicate Caesar in? Is there anything you can do about the two consecutive sentences starting with "she"?)
  • Sorted, I think... I merged those two sentences starting with "she" so it's just one long sentence. Not sure if it's too long though. Belovedfreak 11:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• In "Conception" I saw two consecutive sentences starting with "they". The introduction of Dino also seems somewhat abrupt. Consider adding what part he played in the film's production in the sentence he is first mentioned.
  • There are 3 consecutive sentences actually. Not sure yet how to sort that.Belovedfreak 11:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• I've noticed a trend towards incorporating "Casting" sections with film cast lists. I don't know if you think that would work for this one but you might consider it. Also, consider moving the pic of Caesar to "filming" to illustrate the text on the character's portrayal.
  • I plan to expand the cast section, I'd forgotten that actually. I moved the picture. I may use a different one though, I think that one may be stretching Fair Use a bit. Belovedfreak 11:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw some other odd wording that I'll try to tweak myself. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, it looks better, and thanks for the suggestions.--Belovedfreak 11:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

One more: when did the first DOP resign exactly? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know. I got that from this interview and it doesn't say when exactly. Belovedfreak 11:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

More work been done to get this article up to scratch

Hi, i was wondering whether this could be looked at again now i have made changes as requested above, thanks Murphy Inc 10:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Sunshine

• I did some copyediting but I think it still needs some more. I don't like the "we see" bit under plot. Metaphors and adjectives should be avoided to achieve an encyclopedic tone.
• In the plot there seems to be some interpretation, especially the breakdown bit. Either find a way to rewrite that or a reference from a review might work.
• The images are rather dark and vertically stretched. Consider using images from the imdb or here.
• Also, the images need a source (the DVD, or the links above if you use those) and fair use rationale.
• The festivals and awards need to be mentioned after the lead, probably an awards section would be best as the cinematographer nomination sentence should go in a section like that.
• This may just be me, but I don't like the use of Rotten Tomatoes percentages. They're a hassle to keep updated and seem lazy. A fair representation of reviews with quotes and such would be better.
• The last reference should be fleshed out with a cite template. Including the DVD company as the publisher, etc.

Otherwise, looking good. Doctor Sunshine talk 03:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Belovedfreak

Looks pretty good. A couple of small things I noticed:

• Shouldn't "Synopsys" be "Synopsis"?
• In the "Part 1 - Baby It's Cold Outside" section, it says "at a church-organised dance for young people", but you have used ize versions of words through the rest of the article.

That's all I can see at the moment. --Belovedfreak 21:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Done. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Erik

• Should I assume that you're not a fan of the Cite news template? I found the date and accessdate attributes' bare-bones display odd and wasn't sure if you had a reason for not using the template, which would format the attributes based on the viewer's preferences.
  • I'll admit, I never actually stated using that template. I could theoretically reformat the applicable refs. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I just finally finished it. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 05:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Is there a reason for the Islamism template at the end? Usually, I see such templates used when the article's subject (meaning the documentary) is a part of it. This does not seem to be the specific case here. A more appropriate template would be one for Adam Curtis's productions. (Maybe the "See also" section can be removed and links be placed in such a template.) Readers can visit wiki-links in the article and find out more about the subject matter, including the Islamism template.
  • It was there when I first started rewriting. I'll replace it with an applicable categorization, but I don't really know that much about making templates. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Is there a way to break up the Reactions section? Not by positive/negative, but perhaps by local and international? It's just a rather long body of text.
  • That could probably be done, and I'd probably find more specific reviews for the film in the process. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Possible issue: I don't know where to find "international" reviews outside the US. I'll check Google, but I don't know. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Doesn't necessarily have to be by region, but by the type of criticism... like for the technical aspect of the documentary format, and the accuracy/inaccuracy of information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Done some work towards that end. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• There seem to be some minor copy-editing issues, but I hate to write out whole sentences to say that it's missing this kind of punctuation. I will see if I can brush anything up personally and save you the trouble.
  • Thanks. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hope you can make use of my suggestions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions by Wisekwai

A lot of work has gone into this article and it has definitely improved. Great work on a great film! Here are some suggestions that I think will improve it further:

• In general, I think more wikilinks are needed, especially on titles of other films, people (like Yuen Woo-ping, Jackie Chan, Buster Keaton, etc.) and influential characters such as Bugs Bunny, Road Runner (note, two words, correct link), as well as technical terms (like CGI, and perhaps even ordinary objects that are significant in the film, such as axe and ice cream.
• All film titles should be italicized.
• I feel very strongly that better quality images are needed. Perhaps some unwatermarked publicity stills could replace the screenshots? The screenshots are generally too murky and blurry to be useful.
• In my experience, this should easily become a Good article. It will need more work and references to make it to FA status. — WiseKwai 15:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I've taken your points into account and added the Wikilinks to areas I deem to be worthy of attention. I have also italicized all film titles. Also, I admit that I never noticed those watermarks. I guess I will go and borrow the DVD from a relative and take several screenshots with the PrintScreen. Thanks for the quick response.--Kylohk 19:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

More suggestions

I've been back through the article and have done the following:

• Some light copy editing and condensing.
• I introduced some more wikilinks and corrected some others.
• I expanded the infobox to include fields that were missing, such as cinematographer, music, etc. The release dates were expanded to include the premiere and two other major English-language markets.

On reaching FA status, I would suggest the following:

• Try for Good article status first. That review will mean more critical eyes will see this article and be able to help improve it.
• Consider running the article through the Automated Peer Reviewer.
• Consider submitting the article to WP:LoCE, the League of Copy Editors.
• Perhaps the production section could be expanded a bit? Perhaps the casting notes section could be moved into the production section, which could cover the film's origins, its influences, the actual production and techniques and the marketing.
• Are there any books written about the film or Stephen Chow? Such "hard" citations will go a long way towards ensuring it reaches FA status.

And some nitpicky stuff:

• Should the article be written in British English or American English? It being a Hong Kong film, British English would make sense, although there is nothing wrong with American English. Currently, both usages are present, with words like "programme" and "realizes".
• The way the dates are stated strike me as clumsy. It would read much cleaner without the superscript "nd", "th", etc. Also, if a full date is stated, it should be wikified, but partial dates are not wikilinked. — WiseKwai 05:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Books on Kung Fu Hustle? There will be a big challange, but I will try and find them. As for the British spelling, I've fixed it once more, and narrowed one of the screenshots. Cheers.--Kylohk 10:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is looking good. Sorry that I wasn't clear on the dates. I think the "nd", "th", "st" on the numbers in the dates, superscript or not, are unnecessary and add clutter. It will look cleaner, but will still read the same, and will be easy to wikilink. — WiseKwai 10:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

New update

I have made more changes to the article as follows:

• Casting notes has been moved up as a casting section on Production. Detail about 4 of the actors is written out with sources.
• Filming received its own subsection in Production, and an interview which I found with the CGI company is used as a reference for CGI production.
• A fair use image about the CGI construction of the Buddhist Palm has been added to the production section.

I believe that the article should more or less be ready for a GA nomination. Cheers.--Kylohk 16:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Candidate

The article is now a Good Article Candidate. Please go and have a close look at the article. If there are no problems, feel free to promote it.--Kylohk 16:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The next step: Featured status

I'm pleased that the article has passed the GA. Now, it's time to aim higher, to featured status. Of course, any feedback is appreciated.--Kylohk 19:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The ikiroid

Wow! I'm glad you've taken on such a project—although FA is really difficult to attain. In your case, I would go for GA instead. That being said, I see a few problems with the article. The recentism needs to be fixed, and the multiple single-sentence paragraphs need to be merged together. Also, the article needs to be expanded, and the prose needs to be severely rewritten so that it flows. Right now, it reads like a timeline (In 1991, he did this. In 1994, he did that. In 1999, he did something else). On the flip side, the article is cited quite nicely. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

Nice start, but it needs further work. This is my review:

• Maybe you could expand a bit more the lead per WP:LEAD.
• I don't like very much stubby sections, where a quote is longer than the prose like "Military service".
• "Under the professional name Sinbad,[6] he began his career appearing on Star Search, Sinbad won his round against fellow comedian Dennis Miller,[7] appearing a total of seven times." If this is really one sentence, it is not nice. In general, you should improve the overall prose, which is often prose and not "professional". Further problematic prose: "While Bonet only stayed with the program for a season,[8] Sinbad stayed with the cast from 1988 until 1991 as "Coach Walter Oakes"."
• "With the exception of later addition Marissa Tomei to the cast, the students at Hillman were all high-achieving African Americans with unique personalities, contrary to the "token" roles previously focused on." I don't get something here: the College is fictional; Tome is a real actor. Are you talking about her or about the character she plays. The whole Hillman analysis in these two paragraphs looks to me confusing.
• "Films and other projects" is spread with one-sentence paragraphs and looks listy. I see the same problem is other sections as well. This is not nice for a prose that flows badly and seamlessly.
• I think that all the quotes in "Sinbad in pop culture", although from TV series, should be cited.--Yannismarou 13:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Quadzilla99

Well, I'm not a member of the WikiProject and haven't seen the film yet, but I'll comment anyway. Here are some points to consider:

• Some of the wording in the Historical accuracy section needs watching. A nice subtle way to smuggle in your point of view is to put all the dissenting view points in "person x claims" and "x states that historical record states", while putting your viewpoints "in x dismisses" and "x points to historical research" this is done in making the case that the film is not historically accurate. Instead of dismisses and points to historical research "this point is debated by x who states or claims that" and "x states (or claims) that the historical record is actually different" are more fair and less subtly devious. Claims implies doubt of the statement's accuracy, I would just use states in both cases. Basically try to use the same wording for both points of view and let the facts do the talking while hopefully presenting them in an accurate, even handed manner. If one side's facts genuinely dominate another's it should be clear and obvious to everyone.

Most of that has since been removed, and further additions will be smited into neutral phrasing. Arcayne 21:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• The image with comic and film spliced together has no source information, please explain how it was made and where the two images came from. This is done well on the other image with two images spliced together and should serve as an example.

The fact it comes from the comic book and film should quell many copyright sniffers. WikiNew 19:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It still needs source info for attribution purposes, as a matter of fact it's only a matter of time until it's tagged by the bot as not specifying the source and creator of the image. Quadzilla99 20:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

These are the two sources, here and here and I'm going to add them. The first one is from the actual website that put the images together, the second is where "our" image came from because it was resized on the other screen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• The last two paragraphs in the Political aspects section probably belong in the critical reaction section or perhaps could just be deleted as there are already several negative reviews quoted in length in the critical reaction section. The whole political aspects section seems unnecessary to me. Perhaps it could be just mentioned elsewhere that the film has been interpretated using contemporary political views but there is no evidence it was made that way (especially given the source inspiring it was written in 1998) and the filmmakers have denied it. Maybe it needs to stay as there obviously has been some debate about it but I would delete it. It seems like someone used that section as a chance to include several more negative reviews quoted at length. Basically I would suggest to perhaps eliminate the section and mention it briefly elsewhere (There's already a Persian depiction section which could house some of this info) and pick 2-3 of the most essential negative reviews to use in the critical reaction section.

This strikes me as an interesting point; as I wrote quite a bit of that section I'll briefly give my reasoning here. The question of the film's contemporary political relevance became a major topic of discussion immediately after it was first screened, and I thought it was worthwhile to track that discussion, giving Snyder's replies throughout. (Snyder's replies, incidentally, are quite nuanced, if colloquial, and don't simply consitute a "denial"; more a subtle understanding of the way a film takes on a life of its own once it is released.) That's the first half of the section. The second half charts a major theme in the film's reception by significant critics (i.e. "fascist aesthetics" and the like). Here again, I've attempted to provide balance by supplying demurrals by other critics and by Snyder himself. I don't think these reviews belong in the main "critical reaction" section, which is concerned with more traditional subjects (style, characterization, etc.). Nor do they belong in the "depictions of Persians" section -- the questions of androgyny, mysticism, etc., that are appropriate to that section are not addressed. In general I think the "historical accuracy," "political aspects," and "depiction of Persians" sections provide good coverage of specific significant themes in the film's reception, thus providing some structure to the "reception" section and preventing "critical reaction" from becoming a formless laundry list. But they may all need to be trimmed. --Javits2000 10:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it's a suggestion. Like I said if it is genuinely a large and reported enough issue it will deserve it's own section, but if it's just a temporary reaction that has no merit and will die down in a matter of days. It should deleted or mentioned briefly in my opinion. Also, be aware that to people who aren't as in to the film as you are the endless detail and subdivision might look like needless overanalysis. The statement that "films take on a life of their own" looks like classic reificiation in it's most pure sense to me. I feel it's pretty absurd personally. Correct me if I'm worng, but the film was written in 1998 and is closely based on the original story hence there is no way it could have been made with current political events in mind. The idea that the film is floating around out there in some nebular region developing a mind, consciousness, and life of it's own, is kind of like when ancient philosphers would get so detached from reality they would ask questions like, "What happens when Liberty confronts Justice?" or when "Will confronts Eternity?" Forgetting for a second that those concepts are nothing more than adjectives created by human beings to describe things. Quadzilla99 10:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. For the record I'm not so interested in the film itself (although I did enjoy it) as I am in its reception (i.e. as a discourse -- now there's an article that could use some copy-editing!), so naturally I give greater weight to these sections. Whether or not any political allegory could have been intended by the creators, the fact that such a reading has been repeatedly bandied about by the press strikes me as an interesting historical phenomenon in its own right. But I recognize that someone who is less interested in the subject will probably have to slash these sections -- just as I've slashed "marketing" (see below)! In any case, thanks for your remarks; I think they're on point and very useful.--Javits2000 11:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for taking as what they were meant to be: helpful advice. Quadzilla99 19:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

While not legitimizing the validity of the current uproar or comparisons to current events, it would appear that certain stories, or the methods of communicating them are timesless, i.e. East vs, West, Good vs. Evil, Pure vs. Polluted, Invader vs, Defender, etc. When the earlier film version of Thermopylae was made, comparisons were made between it and the Cold War. All politics is allegory, as all history is repeated. Seen in that context, the grasping at 300 as a sign of the times is to be expected. For that reason, maintaining the political reaction with a minimalist eye will likely work in the long run. Arcayne 22:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Marketing section contains a lot of trivial cruft and short sentences which look like they were converted from a bulleted trivia list. Condense the paragraphs to two or three and eliminate the cruft.

That's all for now, if it looks like I'm being harsh I'm just being thorough. I actually came here as I saw the article and thought "Damn this is a pretty good article for a new movie" and went to the talk page as I wondered what it was rated. I expected it to be a GAC or undergoing something like this and wanted to come comment. Quadzilla99 18:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Lenin and McCarthy

Without giving it a detailed read, I can say that you should probably try to shorten the plot section and merge relevant information in the trivia section into the rest of the article, as the page already reccomends. Also, the deleted scene picture without any accompanying text should either be explained or removed. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 14:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree about acquiring a peer review, it’s a very informative article. First of all on improving the page, some production stills would be very good (such as the cast, or Lynch on the set), and citations for the references in popular culture section, the opening section of the article I wrote, and I think its fine, but needs a little expansion since Blue Velvet is an important film in cinema history, and the plot needs to be reduced to about a 800-900 words max. Angel2001 18:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've started cleaning up things. I slimmed down the Plot Synposis considerably and did some little formatting here and there. -Count Ringworm 15:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Gillian416

This article has a lot of really good details. I went through and made some fairly minor copyediting changes for readability as well as placed citation needed where a statement was unsourced. Here are some other things I noticed:

• “The title is taken from a Bobby Vinton song by the same name, which continues the blue velvet motif that appears throughout the film in several significant moments.”

Since Blue Velvet is actually the title of the film and therefore usually the first thing someone knows about the film, it would make more sense to say that this title "begins" or "initiaties" this motif that continues throughout the rest of the film rather than "continues".

• "Blue Velvet was financed and produced for Italian movie producer Dino de Laurentiis, however he deemed the film to be far "too dark", so Laurentiis had to start his own production company to distribute it, which became the De Laurentiis Entertainment Group."

I find this statement very confusing. If De Laurentiis found it too dark, why would he create a productions company just to get it distributed? Is it that his financial backers found it too dark?

• In Origins it says "once the ideas came to Lynch"

The paragraphs before this statement suggest that Lynch had been formulating these ideas for many years and therefore did not just "come to" him. I couldn't think of a good way to reword this, but I think it should be changed.

• In Writing: "The scene where Dorothy appears naked outside after being raped and beaten was inspired by a real-life experience Lynch had in his childhood when he and his brother saw a naked woman walking down a neighborhood street at night. The experience was so traumatic to the young Lynch at the time, it made him cry and he had never forgotten it."

I think this paragraph would make more sense in Origins.

• Also in Writing: "Lynch's original script had Dorothy's child die before he could be saved, and Dorothy committing suicide at the end by throwing herself off the roof of the apartment building, her Blue Velvet robe dropping to cover the ground-level camera. Her suicide was to be crosscut with Jeffrey's idyllic home life. This referenced a previous scene in the film, shot but not included in the final cut, where Dorothy and Jeffrey make love on the roof of the apartment building during a thunderstorm, after which Dorothy threatens to jump from the roof."

This idea has no conclusion or explanation. Just because it was changed seems unimportant if we don't know why it was changed. Obviously after 4 drafts, a lot of things were changed that are not included in the article so this needs to be justified somehow.

• In Casting it says Dennis Hopper was Lynch's third choice but before that, three actors are mentioned to whom the role was offered before Hopper. Was he 3rd or 4th? Also, imdb claims that Robert Loggia wanted to play the role of Frank. If this is true he probably would not have passed on the role.
• Directing

This is by far the most problematic section. It reads like a college term paper and is largely unsourced. It also does not provide any insight into Lynch's directing style or the atmosphere of the set. Personally, I believe the whole section should be deleted.

• References in Popular Culture

In agreement with above comments, any relevant information that can be merged into the body of the article would be great. Also, it seems the paragraphs are divided arbitrarily. I think sections like this read better in list form. Either way I think it could stand to be pared down significantly.

• I hope these comments were helpful! There is a lot of really interesting info in this article on a really interesting film. Good luck! Gillian416 21:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse

• Lead is way too short. See WP:LEAD. One good suggestion from there is to include at least part of a sentence about every important section of the article.
• Why so much on the music in the lead? Was it that important in the movie? I recommend moving the music down into a section of its own. Was there a soundtrack released?
• first section, wikilink New Years Eve, Hula hoop, frisbee.
• Norville is chased down the street by an angry mob to the Hudsucker building - what made the mob angry?
• Moses stops the clock and time freezes - huh? Need to explain Moses's mystical powers a bit more. If he has divine powers, why does he have to fight Aloysius - or is Aloysius also more than human? Heck, what are M and A's motivations?
• goes on to "rule with wisdom" - rule what, the company? why the quote marks?
• action."[1]One - need a space after the ref
• Production - wikilink skyscraper, since it's so important
• While trying to sell their feature film debut Blood Simple, - be more specific, give a date
• the scale after Citizen Kane (1941).- in what sense is the scale based on a famous movie?
• it was a box office flop, grossing less than $3,000,000 in the US. - this needs to be moved after the test shootings text, don't you think? In fact, I'd move it all the way to Reaction.
• More reaction - this only describes immediate reaction, what about reaction over the last 15 years? Any more recent films based on it, any more recent reviews, retrospectives, references?
• References - the Retrieved on dates are red links, try again, maybe need leading 0s? Also some refs have double double quotes, as in ""A Rock on the Beach,"
• External links - describe the links more. Coenesque - isn't there a more specific subpage for this film?

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Cbrown1023 talk

• The article seems great!
  • Lots of refs
  • Covers a lot
  • Fair use rationales for images
    • However, you may be using too many fair use images (Wikipedia:Fair use):
      • The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). This includes the original in the Image: namespace. Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.
      • The material must contribute significantly to the article
    • Some of them can stay, but others have to go if you are looking for an WP:FA.

I am confused about the fair use policy regarding images. I will try to merge the facts from the trivia section into the main article. Real96 18:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I incorporated the trivia facts into the article. The trivia fact about Eddie Murphy's films was incorporated into his article. I am confused about the copyrighted work, because the licensing was of the film's screenshot. Real96 19:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-newbie

Trivia needs to be merged with appropriate areas of the article to help with context. It can't just lie around as a dead stump of information. There isn't any way you could clean the plot? Wiki-newbie 17:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The plot summary as it stands now glosses over a lot. It couldn't really get much tighter than that. --FuriousFreddy 23:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Allusions to factual events" is listy and may be interpreted by some as being a trivia section. If you could convert it from being listy to an actual section, cohesive and tied throughout with an intro, middle and end, then this may help. LuciferMorgan 03:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Erikster

• There's a Ratings table hanging out in the Plot summary section. Is the table really notable enough for inclusion?
• "Casting notes" and "Production notes" seem like odd section headings, especially with the latter being under "Production history". Can either of these be renamed?
• Citation for the Los Angeles premiere (seconds sentence in Reception) would be nice.
• Maybe I'm being too picky, but I think there should be references for the Awards subsection. The last three paragraphs in that subsection don't appear fully cited.
• "Related promotions and products" seems oddly placed under Reception, though I don't know where else it could go. I'd suggest re-titling it as "Marketing", maybe.
• The Cast section is placed so deeply in the article. Why not place it, at the very least, before Reception?
• Not everything in "Allusions to factual events" is cited. I don't know if this used to be a trivia section, but I agree with the above sentiment that it seems too listy. Re-writing it in prose would be nice.
• Is it necessary to have such a long main Awards section? I would suggest removing minor awards ("Syracuse Post-Standard"?) and possibly merging the rest of them into the Awards subsection under Reception. Or just make a stand-alone Awards section written in prose. Just my opinion -- the list of awards just seems long to me.
• I strongly recommend applying the Cite news and Cite web templates to the references in this article. With the template, the fully-exposed links will be linked through the title.

• I would also recommend, after applying the templates, that you place {{reflist|2}} under Notes to create two columns for the references.

My apologies if I sound too critical; the article is really quite well-done. I remember visiting it a few months ago before the film came out, and I could tell someone was devoting a lot of time to it. Glad to see that it's remained intact ever since. Definitely is approaching FA status. I'll have to actually read the content (just kind of skimmed this time, pointed out structural things) and get back to you on the writing. From what I noticed, all the references and punctuation was in place, which makes me a very happy editor. Cheers, and good luck continuing to build it up. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Crzycheetah

Comment Wow, I am really stunned at the length of the article. After skimming through the article, I have found several minor things I didn't like.

• Image:Anhathaway.jpg should be moved to the right side so that the first four bullets of the Characters section could be seen.
  • I put it there (or, well, someone else did) because I tend to believe very strictly in alternating images from side to side for readability's sake, as it mirrors the sweep of our eyes across the page.

    But at the time it was placed, it was a lot closer to the infobox. That doesn't apply now.

• Image:Stanley Tucci in DWP.jpg should be moved down to the Cast section.
  • Will do. It was placed there before things got so long.
• {{wikiquote}} should be moved down to the External links section.
  • I had that there because it's next to the writing section and to give the readers' eyes a break from what was a long block of text. I'll move it, but I may have to get another image, which will have to be fair use.
• Commercial, Critical, and Local marketing subsections of International section should be merged under International section. In other words, get rid of those subsections by putting the info under International section.
  • Good idea.
• 2006 in film link should be removed from See also section, since it's already linked in the lead.
  • Someone else put it there. I thought it had something to do with project guidelines; didn't make sense to me and I'll take it out.
• Citation #42 should be fixed.
  • Yes, someone else moved a reference to the intro without bothering to fix the followups. I hate when that happens. At some point we'll have to make it a blockable offense :-).
• Image:The Devil Wears Prada DVD cover.jpg should be under DVD section.
  • I have it where it is so it displays the way it does. I can move it, and will, but if it becomes necessary to move it back to the left again I'll put it back above so it doesn't cut the hed off from the text. I hate when that happens; it looks ugly.
• Question: what does ibid mean in your references?
  • Same thing as in everyone else's references.

That's all from me for now. I am sure others will give you more help in improving this article. Crzycheetah 23:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. These were helpful suggestions. Very good to have another pair of eyes on it. Daniel Case 04:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-New

Let me just congratulate on the effort, and for not letting a film you like that could be forgotten in a decade's time not happen. So, effectively you need to make more use of summarising.

• Plot: Are you sure you can't squash down things, or connect elements together better so as to feel less than a retread?
  • Believe it or not, someone else felt it wasn't detailed enough and added more. Are you looking at today's version? This was the way it was before today ... I had worked on getting it down to less than a thousand words before submitting it here. Think we should go back to the shorter version? I do.

Indeed, cut it down. WikiNew 13:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Differences from book: Does anyone care if Andrea isn't blonde? I suggest keeping the most important information, such as Lily's character. What do you think are the most startling changes? Looking at the writing section, you could merge some information together as to why there were done, so as to not be so listy.
  • The hair info could certainly go ... a few weeks ago I decided that some anon's addition of the twins' hair being red in the movie and blonde in the book was waaaaay too trivial to be in the article, particularly since their role is even smaller in the movie. I just followed the examples I saw in other recognized film articles, where that level of detail was given.

    Certainly the changes to the ending, Lily and the other main characters are significant are important and should stay.

Well good luck with that. Structurally it'd be best to walk through the plot and describe the differences. WikiNew 13:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Would it? If I'm reading a section headed "Synopsis", I want to read a précis of the plot, not a précis constantly interrupted by explanations as to how the book was different. That would work when there's minimal differences between the two; not here.

Besides, many other recognized articles about films based on books have this separate section describing the differences (see V for Vendetta and The Lord of the Rings. Although, now that I think of it, I could probably prosify it, which could shorten things up.

• The Production could lose a lot of sectioning. Axe storyboards information: trivial at best, the only notable thing it's used for is mostly big budget and Spielberg's films.
  • Fine. Frankel says it on the commentary like it was a pretty significant decision (maybe it is in TV, which is where he's done most of his work).
  • A caveat on losing the sectioning: If during a later review a consensus emerges to restore such sectioning (I did it in response to common complaints on FAC ... I created {{subsections}} for a reason), I will do it. Daniel Case 06:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• All quotes need to be boiled down to a few sentences.
  • You mean quotes from the movie? It doesn't really have that. You mean other people's quotes? I do think (perhaps it's my journalism background) that having someone's actual quote as a way of explaining something is better than some interpretation you might write.

    Or do you mean the long quotes?

Long quotes regarding the making of the film, such as the one at the end of the costuming. WikiNew 13:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Can do on that one.

• Locations is a list. Try writing it in as a timeline of when things happened. Look at my work on Jurassic Park (film).
  • I looked at that, and there is no source that describes what they were doing on what date that I could use that way, the way you used that "making of" book. The locations, as cited, all come from the DVD commentary, where they're sort of just tossed off. Under those circumstances, I can't see how you could do them as anything but a list. Daniel Case 00:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Surprisingly well needs to be deleted from Reception opening paragraph.
  • I do think someone said that its box-office performance was surprising (an early summer chick flick was not supposed to gross almost as well as, say, Superman Returns did. And it had legs, particularly overseas. Perhaps I should cite that?

Indeed.

It's in one of the DVD reviews. I'll put it in.

• Nab critisism with Anna Wintour for overall look at the film as a satire.
  • Nab? Did you mean to use another word?

Yes, do merge to an overall section on the fashion industry's reaction. WikiNew 13:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Remove see also and references in other media, it's original research.
  • We have that for quite a few other film articles. What if it were cited (Most of it was added by other editors, anyway)? I can't see how someone explicitly referencing the film in an episode of Ugly Betty is original research.

It could be trivial and considered original research: WP:A says this isn't about what you notice. WikiNew 13:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked over the style guidelines and, indeed, there are neither section. But let me just warn you that that sort of thing will likely be restored at some point, given the similarities between DWP and UB and the fact that they both succeeded.

Funny Face was a film mentioned in some of the reviews ... I suppose I can integrate it into the article. Ditto with the Glad ad, although I'd like to have a source for it, like whatwasthat.com (but it is the same music). Daniel Case 03:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Images: how often does the satanic shoe need to pop up?
  • Probably less, but since the article got as long as it did, I felt they were necessary to break up the text and make it easier on readers' eyes. Daniel Case 00:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Overall, very good work. Just needs to definitely be more readable before a GA. WikiNew 17:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed to split off the production section (which accounts for more than a quarter of the article's total length) as a separate article on the talk page as a way of bringing the article into manageable length. If any reviewers have any thoughts on the idea (which might be a first as far as I can tell), bring them up there. Daniel Case 04:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Konstable

Just a brief comment (might add more later):

• You need to check your image details, a lot of the fair use ones are missing fair use rationales
• I think you are probably using too many images. They are mostly fair use so you should be limiting their use to only instances where they add to the content of the article significantly. For instance, the shoe image is repeated 4 times, different situations, but quite repetitive and probably not really necessary.

--Konstable 11:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I know I put {{fair use rationale}} on all the screenshots or publicity stills (actually, they're all stills ... I really think those should have a separate licensing template to reflect that they are created and distributed by the film distributor, as opposed to user-created screenshots). While my original justification was that it demonstrated the iconic power of the image, I was aware that some people might see it as overkill and accordingly I'm ready to remove two of them ... probably the soundtrack and the teaser poster (the former is already in that article; the latter has just been kept since it was first used before the film's release).

It will also help to split off the production history section ... I think I'll keep Frankel and Streep there, and maybe Streep and Field since they're easier to justify as not having been part of the movie. Daniel Case 13:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Trebor

• for the next several years - I think "next" is implied; nothing else would make sense. "Several" is a bit vague, so perhaps more detail on timescale.
  • Rewrote slightly, noting specifically in what year the series ended.-Hal Raglan 20:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• 16th Century Spain - rather blunt start. Incorporate the setting into full prose.
  • This is actually a fairly standard practice for a plot synopsis for films set in the past. I've changed it to read "In Spain, during the 16th century...", which seems a little clumsy to me.-Hal Raglan 20:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Is it standard practice? If so, leave it; I've just never seen it before. Trebor 21:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Although they are mentioned in the intro, I would wikilink and give the full name of the actors within the brackets. It just makes it easier to associate character and actor.
  • This seems redundant to me, but I've wikilinked all actors again in the Synopsis section.-Hal Raglan 20:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• There could be more wikilinking within the synopsis and perhaps the section as a whole could be trimmed slightly.
  • More wikilinks added to the section (I hope I haven't gone overboard).-Hal Raglan 21:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The synopsis currently consists of 672 words. Wikipedia guidelines suggest "between 400 - 700" words as the recommended length for this section. Nonetheless, I will attempt to make some trims to the text.-Hal Raglan 21:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it's probably alright. Take all my suggestions with judgement; I'm not always right (in fact, I'm frequently wrong). Trebor 21:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• The first part of production (The box office success...) isn't actually to do with the production of the film, so should probably be moved to response.
  • It was the box office success of the previous film that convinced AIP to proceed with the production of Pit, so I think this in fact does belong in the "Production" section.-Hal Raglan 20:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oops, I read that completely wrong; you're entirely right. Trebor 21:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Again, wikilink the actors in the Cast section (it's a pretty standard thing to do).
  • I understand your point, but the actors are already wikilinked in the infobox, lead paragraphs, and "Synopsis" section. I think to wikilink them again here would simply be redundant. If you really think this might be an issue for other editors, let me know.-Hal Raglan 21:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't know, I can only comment on what is usually done in the articles I've seen (and the Film Wikiproject guidelines). Trebor 21:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• With few exceptions, the majority of the film’s reviews - seems a bit redundant to say there were exceptions and also that the majority were positive - one implies the other. I'd cut the first three words.
  • Excellent point. Those three words are now gone.-Hal Raglan 20:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Why has "uncredited" got a [sic]?
  • Because, despite the reviewer's comment, the screenplay was credited. The insertion of the [sic] is to show that this was Stinson's error, not mine.-Hal Raglan 20:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh okay. It might be better to make more explicit what you're correcting; in my experience, sic is usually used for spelling or grammar problems. Trebor 21:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I believe you are correct that sic is generally used for spelling and grammatical errors, but its also utilized to note that a transcription error has not occurred. I may just delete this particular comment to avoid any possible confusion.-Hal Raglan 21:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty good at the moment and fairly well-referenced. I'm not particularly involved with the GA process, but I reckon this stands a good chance. A bit of tidying and a copyedit should make sure of it. Good work. Trebor 20:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Did a more detailed read through and came up with a few things:

• Other sources, including Corman himself, have said that the film's budget was in fact approximately $300,000, nearly the same as for House - I don't like the "in fact", it sounds a bit conversation-like. Also, the sentence follows a very similar form to the previous one (budget was so-and-so, nearly so-and-so of House); it might be nicer to change the form a little.
  • Rewrote both sentences to avoid redundant "sound", while retaining basic facts.-Hal Raglan 21:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• horrific finale - I'm nit-picking, but isn't horrific a bit POV.
  • I think its borderline POV. The intent of the finale is clearly to be horrific. Removing the offending word, as I can't think of any other way to write this w/out being equally POV, is probably the best course of action.-Hal Raglan 21:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Filming went fairly smoothly without any major problems - bit of redundancy, "fairly smoothly" implies "no major problems" and vice versa.
  • It is redundant. Fixed!-Hal Raglan 21:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• It was determined the best way to film the flashbacks would be in monochrome - passive voice and a bit wordy; could probably be simplified.
  • Fixed! Removed passive voice and trimmed.-Hal Raglan 21:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• constructed "from scratch" - the quotation marks suggest it's a quotation which I don't think it is. If it isn't, perhaps something less slangy could be used.
  • "from scratch" is taken directly from the Lightman article.-Hal Raglan 22:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• these treasure troves - odd way to describe them, perhaps POV.
  • Changed to "various depositories"-Hal Raglan 22:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • "Various" is redundant ;) Trebor 22:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• The film’s pressbook claimed - claimed is a word to avoid per this.
  • Changed to "noted"-Hal Raglan 22:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• The film’s critical reputation has continued to grow over the years and it is now generally held to be a classic of the genre - definitely needs a reference if it's to be included.
  • Changed to less effusive "one of the best entries in Corman's Poe series." This is definitely supported by the numerous quotes that follow-Hal Raglan 22:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• There are a few sentences starting with conjunctions ("and" or "but"), which perhaps could be changed. I personally dislike them, but they are much more accepted these days; I don't know if it would count as poor prose, so you can take or leave this suggestion.
  • I'll take a look through the article and see if any these particular sentences can/should be changed.-Hal Raglan 22:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Having read through this article in more detail, I've upgraded my opinion of it to "very good". Trebor 21:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Also:

• most of them starring Price - it'd be as easy and more informative to say "[number] of them starring Price."
  • replaced "most" with "five"-Hal Raglan 22:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• a rare achievement for a follow-up/sequel - may need citing (I'm not sure). I dislike the slash as well, does "sequel" add a meaning that isn't implied through "follow-up"? Trebor 22:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • removed "sequel" (and that monstrously evil "slash"). I don't think this needs to be sourced, but I'll look for a cite if anybody believes otherwise.-Hal Raglan 22:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, I just dislike slashes. I'm uncertain about the necessity of a cite but I think it's better with one than without. Trebor 23:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Supernumerary

• Please use <br/> in the infobox instead of ";" and ",".
  • fixed-Hal Raglan 00:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "a young Englishman's visit to a forbidding castle to investigate his sister's mysterious death." Rephrase to avoid the repetition of "to". I suggest a who clause.
  • changed to "a young Englishman who visits a forbidding castle to investigate his sister's mysterious death"-Hal Raglan 00:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "immediately following Corman’s House of Usher (1960)" This naturally refers to the nearest noun, which is not what you want. I suggest rephrasing to make it clearer and to eliminate the parenthetical (perhaps with "released the year before" or a more specific measurement).
  • changed to "the first having been Corman’s House of Usher released the previous year"-Hal Raglan 00:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "in order to find out" Redundant and colloquial.
  • changed to "to find out"-Hal Raglan 00:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • changed again to "to investigate"-Hal Raglan 02:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• I don't think "death" should be wikilinked, and I am iffy on "castle".
  • I agree with you; these were wikilinked based on a suggestion made during this peer review.-Hal Raglan 00:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "having died from a rare blood disorder." Maybe change "having died from" to just "dying from"
  • I don't see a problem here-Hal Raglan 00:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "However, it is soon revealed that Elizabeth had become obsessed with the various torture devices located in the basement of the castle and one day locked herself into an iron maiden, having gone insane." Avoid passive voice. Move the "having gone insane" to earlier to make it clear why she locked herself in. Is "various" needed?
  • Rewrote for clarity, removed "various"-Hal Raglan 01:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Francis, having noted that Nicholas appears to be feeling guilty regarding Elizabeth’s death, is offered a lengthy explanation by Catherine." Avoid passive! You have a clause larger than the main clause separating the subject and verb. Using active voice solves this problem.
  • Rewrote-Hal Raglan 01:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Their father was Sebastian Medina" Their goes back to Francis and Catherine here.
  • Rewrote, and removed the name "Francis" from the sentence to avoid any possible confusion.-Hal Raglan 01:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "suddenly began hitting" and "then began torturing" Avoid repeating "began".
  • Fixed-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "directly in front of Nicholas’s eyes" Drop "directly".
  • removed "directly"-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• ' "But the doctor tells Nicholas that "if Elizabeth Medina walks these corridors, it is her spirit and not her living self." ' I dislike using "but" to start a sentence. Try a good "however" or "nevertheless".
  • removed "but"-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "with one of her rings found in the keyboard." I don't think this clause works, I'd say change it to "and one of her ...".
  • magically transformed into two sentences to avoid clause problems-Hal Raglan 02:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "That night, Nicholas, now on the very edge of sanity, hears his wife calling him." Maybe excessive commas.
  • Seems fine to me-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "hears his wife calling him. He follows her ghostly voice down to the torture chamber." These two sentences can be easily combined by just saying he follows her voice (or he is summoned by her voice).
  • yes, but I think it reads better the way it is.-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Nicholas then approaches Elizabeth and promises he will torture her horribly." Needs a comma.
  • comma added-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "pendulum/razor" Avoid using a slash. Perhaps "razor-tipped pendulum"?
  • changed to "razor-sharp blade"-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • decided to change to "the swinging blade" instead, because "razor-sharp" was used a sentence or two back.-Hal Raglan 17:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Catherine arrives just in time with a servant. After a brief fight, Nicholas falls to his death and Francis is removed from the torture device." The servant is not important, so cut him. You need a comma for the second sentence.
  • mentioning the servant is important, because it needs to be explained how and why Nicholas falls to his death. He doesn't fight Catherine.-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh! So he fights the servant? I just thought that she showed up with a servant. I didn't see the servant mentioned after that and assumed the fight was between him and Catherine.--Supernumerary 02:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Seriously? I'm sorry, this is the first time I've laughed during this peer review. If you honestly believe this is confusingly written, I'll need to clarify this plot point. I suppose I could change the second sentence to "After a brief fight with the servant..."-Hal Raglan 02:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, after glancing at this again I can see why there was confusion. I've made the change to the second sentence.-Hal Raglan 03:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "The Pit and the Pendulum was announced in August 1960 and filming began the first week of January, 1961." Comma!
  • comma added--Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Williams' " You need to standardize to either "s's" or "s' ".
  • Oops, thought I had standardized this. Changed to "Williams's"-Hal Raglan 02:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "According to Lucy Chase Williams' book, The Complete Films of Vincent Price, the shooting schedule was fifteen days with an additional day set aside for cast rehearsals, and the film’s budget was almost $1 million." Again comma. Remove the parenthetical by simply saying "with an additional day for cast rehearsals".
  • I can't pretend to understand the horror some editors feel regarding parenthetical asides, but I've removed them here. The sentence seems clumsier to me this way.-Hal Raglan 02:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "$300,000." I'm not sure if you need to make it clear that it is US$. Though in the infobox you should.
  • I think this is fine the way it is.-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "that barely resembled Poe, with only the finale having any similarity at all to the original short story on which the film was based." Redundant.
  • I see nothing redundant about specifically mentioning what aspect of the story was true to Poe's tale.-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You say that it barely resembles Poe, and then you say that the only similarity is the finale. I don't see why you wouldn't just say that it only resembles the Poe story during the finale. Doesn't that imply that it barely resembled Poe's story?--Supernumerary 02:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, the implication would indeed be there if I rewrote the sentence in the way you suggest. However, my personal preference is to keep it the way it is. I honestly don't find anything wrong with first noting that the narrative barely resembles Poe, then specifically detailing the small part of the film that does directly correspond to the short story. It doesn't seem redundant to me. I've incorporated many of your very helpful suggestions, but I just don't agree with you on this one.-Hal Raglan 02:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Price suggested numerous dialogue line changes himself for his character." Move or drop the "himself".
  • Changed to "Price himself".-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Francis Barnard is first introduced to Nicholas and asks about loud, strange noises he has just heard." Awkward. Maybe use a when clause?
  • changed to "when Francis Barnard is first introduced to Nicholas, the young man asks about loud, strange noises he had heard a few moments earlier.-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "dialogue would have ruined the power of the scene" Should just be "would".
  • I'm assuming you mean change to "would ruin". Changed-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Correct.--Supernumerary 02:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "with Panavision cameras and lenses." I'm not sure how important what cameras and lenses they used.
  • probably not important; another editor had inserted this info into the text and, since the Corman quote referenced camerawork, I felt this was an appropriate place for the detail. I may simply delete this.-Hal Raglan 00:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "with the major technicians involved." Can probably drop "involved".
  • gone!-Hal Raglan 00:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Director of Photography Floyd Crosby and Art Director Daniel Haller" Wikilink "Director of Photography" and "Art Director", and check if they two people have articles.
  • both have articles, and both have been wikilinked previously in the infobox and in the lead paragraphs.-Hal Raglan 00:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "attempted to shoot them in a manner that would convey to the audience" I think "attempted to shoot them to convey to the audience" works just as well with fewer words, but I don't like the repetition of "to". I have no preference really.
  • since I can't think of a better way to write this (at least at the moment), I will let this stay the way it is.-Hal Raglan 00:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "The sequences were then printed on blue-tinted stock which was subsequently toned red during development, effectively producing a two-tone image." Add some wikilinks.
  • wikilinks added-Hal Raglan 01:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "The image was then run through an optical printer where the edges were vignetted and a twisted linear distortion was introduced." Wikilink "optical printer" and "vignetted".
  • done-Hal Raglan 01:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• I don't see how wide-angle lenses help convey hysteria.
  • I don't really either, but that was Corman's reasoning, per the cited Lightman article.-Hal Raglan 01:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Except for a brief exterior prologue filmed on the Palos Verdes coast, featuring Kerr's arrival to the castle by coach, the entire production was shot in four sound stages at the California Studios in Hollywood." "featuring Kerr's arrival to the castle by coach" goes back to "the Palos Verdes coast"; reword. Also is "featuring" the right word? Maybe "showing" is better.
  • changed to "The film's brief exterior prologue showing Kerr's arrival to the castle was filmed on the Palos Verdes coast. The rest of the production was shot in four interior sound stages at the California Studios in Hollywood."
• "all of which were dusty, discarded pieces left over from old Universal productions." There's no way to fix the ambiguity here (that always bothers me), but you could drop "left over from old Universal productions".
  • I rewrote the whole sentence to read "At Universal Studios, he located numerous discarded pieces from old productions, including massive archways, fireplaces, windows and doorways, and several torture machine props."-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "he found gigantic stairways and stone wall units that were available" "that were available" is superfluous.
  • removed.-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Haller selected and rented numerous pieces" Is "selected" needed?
  • probably not, but it indicates that he did have ample choices. removed anyway.-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "film were subsequently constructed" Is "subsequently" necessary?
  • not really, removed.-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "The film’s pressbook noted that the pendulum utilized in the movie was eighteen feet long, with a realistic rubber cutting blade, and weighed over a ton." Is "utilized in the movie" necessary? I don't think the commas are needed, and you might want to move "weighed over a ton" to earlier.
  • slight rewrite, deleted "utilized in the movie" and moved "weighed over a ton" directly after "eighteen feet long"-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "The pendulum was rigged from the top of the sound stage and suspended thirty-five feet in the air." Why not just "The pendulum was rigged from the top of the sound stage thirty-five feet from the floor."? Or am I misinterpreting "suspended"?
• No, you're not misinterpreting...rewrote-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "and a 40 mm Panavision wide-angle lens used" maybe "equipped with a 40 mm Panavision wide-angle lens"
  • rewrote-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "These areas were filled in later by printing-in process extensions of the set, doubling it's size onscreen." Wikilink "printing-in process extensions" and change "it's" to "its".
  • "Printing-in process extensions" is exactly what is used in the Lightman article, and I confess I'm not quite sure what this means. I could find no wikipedia articles that relate to this term. In the film, its quite clear that a matte painting was added to the shot to enhance the size of the set, so I'll go out on a limb and wikilink the term to the article on matte paintings.-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You could try asking over at WikiProject Filmmaking.--Supernumerary 02:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I have done just that. We'll see what the experts come up with.-Hal Raglan 03:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Some, however, thought his acting overly theatrical and damaging to the film's mood." The some here needs to be specified with a source.
  • I've quoted a critic who felt this way, and properly cited it.-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oops, I missed that.--Supernumerary 02:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "so after the filming was completed he had all of her dialogue dubbed by a different actress." Why not just "so he had all of her dialogue dubbed by a different actress"?
  • I could rewrite it that way, but the dubbing was done after the filming was completed. Perhaps an irrelevant detail, but I don't see the harm in including it.-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Anders'" should be "Anders's"
  • you are correct, fixed-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Anders' role as Price's (much younger) sister was one of several appearances she made in AIP productions, most of them directed by Corman." Did Corman direct most AIP productions, or did he direct most of her appearances? (I see that it is later clarified, but fix this nonetheless.)
  • clarified-Hal Raglan 01:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Other cast: Patrick Westwood as Maximillian, Lynette Bernay as Maria, Larry Turner as Nicholas as child, Mary Menzies as Isabella, Charles Victor as Bartolome." Who are these characters?
  • Nicholas as child, Isabella, and Bartolome are all mentioned in the synopsis. Maximillian was a servant and Maria was a maid. All five roles are bit parts. I'll add brief descriptors in the Cast Section to explain who Maximillian and Maria were.-Hal Raglan 01:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• 'Prior to the start of filming, Corman had set aside one day of rehearsals with his cast. "Previously, I had painstakingly rehearsed the actors so there was complete understanding as to what each was to accomplish in each scene. This is most important; there is nothing worse than to be on the set and ready to roll, only to find that director and actor have different views as to how the scene is to be done. Thanks to pre-production planning and rehearsals, there was no time wasted on the set in haggling and making decisions." ' Didn't you already talk about this before the cast section?
  • No, a mention was made earlier of pre-planning with the technical crew. This is in reference to one-day set apart from the shooting schedule strictly for cast rehearsals.-Hal Raglan 01:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, I did mention this before, when discussing the production cost and shooting schedule. No need to state this twice, so I removed the previous reference.-Hal Raglan 02:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "$2,000,000 in domestic (U.S. and Canada)" This is a case where I think you really should clarify that it is US dollars.
  • will do-Hal Raglan 01:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "peccadilloes" I sadly think that most people do not know what "peccadilloes" means, and that you might want to wikitionary/wikipedia link it.
  • OK-Hal Raglan 01:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "near to burlesquing the role." Again "burlesquing" might have to be linked.
  • probably a good idea-Hal Raglan 01:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "While noting that the film was “marginally less successful” than House of Usher," Should mention that this is erroneous.
  • I don't think he was referring to box office success.-Hal Raglan 01:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Thing is that earlier it says that the film was both a better box office success and a better critical success. What was he referring to?--Supernumerary 02:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      • He was referring to the film's overall quality. His comment indicates that he personally didn't believe Pit was on quite the same level as House. That's why he says "marginally less successful". As this is one critic's opinion, I don't believe this conflicts with the earlier statement. If every critic felt this way, obviously the earlier statement would not be accurate.-Hal Raglan 03:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Since this is apparently one of those "open to interpretation" kind of things, and could conceivably confuse anybody reading the article, I've removed the comment.-Hal Raglan 04:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Phil Hardy’s The Aurum Film Encyclopedia: Horror observed" Wikilink the book?
  • I've been thinking about doing this for a long time. It is a major film reference work and needs a wikipedia article. I'll work on this later and eventually wikilink it.-Hal Raglan 01:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• The response section seems to just heap praise on the film. I see that it is balanced by negative reviews, but consider cutting any of the less important/repetitive reviews.
  • My personal preference for "Response" sections is that they have as many notable positive and negative critical reactions as possible. I'll take another look here and remove what I can.-Hal Raglan 01:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• It's standard to have all film guide and rotten tomatoes links in the external links section.
  • OK, I'll add links to MRQE, DVD Beaver, MetaCritic, and Rotten Tomatoes to that section.-Hal Raglan 01:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• It looks good overall and should easily pass GA criteria.--Supernumerary 00:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead

• "It is the Dutch submission for the Academy Award" Shouldn't this be in the past tense?
  • I changed it, but since the nominations will be announced this month, I thought present tense was appropriate. - Ilse@ 06:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Black Book was the most visited Dutch film in 2006." Is "visited" the right word. I know what you're trying to say, but I think there might be a more common word (the most seen? the best attended? or the highest grossing?)
  • I changed the sentence to: "Black Book was the Dutch film with the highest box office gross in 2006." - Ilse@ 06:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "At the time of its release, it was the most expensive Dutch film ever made" Has anything surpassed it yet?
  • This is how WikiProject Films/Style guidelines proposed to state this information. It has not been surpassed, but this way the text remains correct when more expensive films will be released. - Ilse@ 06:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I added a link to a list of most expensive Dutch films, I think this solves the problem - Ilse@ 08:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed.--Supernumerary 23:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Plot

• Why are you wikilinking the actors twice in the plot? It looks like you wrote one, wrote the other, and then forgot to remove the excess links.
  • I tried to remove these links already, but User:Patrick stated: "keep the links in the plot info to make it self-contained, the part before the spoiler warning is just for people who do not want to see the rest)". I disagreed with him, but didn't see a point in re-reverting it. I have now removed the links again. - Ilse@ 06:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The reason the links are unnecessary is that anyone who avoids the spoilers will get the links from the spoiler free section. Anyone who reads the spoilers will already have the links. Plus they're in the cast section.--Supernumerary 20:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "to flee the Nazi-occupied part of the Netherlands to the liberated southern part of the country, by boat" Change it "to flee from" to match "from" and "to". The "by boat" is tacked on, and you should trying playing around with the wording to make it fit better.
  • I changed the sentence to "In 1944, the young Jewish woman Rachel Steinn tries to flee by boat, together with her family and other Jews, from the Nazi-occupied part of the Netherlands to the liberated southern part of the country." - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "However, they are attacked by the Germans and she is the only survivor; she does not succeed in fleeing outside the occupied territory but is not caught." It needs a comma and to be reworded.
  • I have split and reworded the sentence. - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Rachel joins a resistance group, and under the alias Ellis de Vries manages to get friendly with the German SD officer Ludwig Müntze (Sebastian Koch), and to bug the office." Missing commas and one two many "and"s.
  • I have split the sentence. - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "She gets a job in the SD office. She really falls in love with Müntze. He is not as bad for the Dutch as other German officers. For example, he refuses to obey the rule to kill 40 innocent Dutch citizens to revenge the killing by the resistance group of a Dutch traitor. For this Müntze is imprisoned and sentenced to death." This is choppy. Did she get the job after bugging the office because then you could combine that sentence with the other easily (you could still combine it if not). "to revenge" should be "to avenge"
  • I have rewritten these sentences and used "to avenge". - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "The resistance group plans to free a number of their imprisoned men. Rachel is only willing to participate if they free Müntze too. Reluctantly they agree. However, the attempt fails and many prisoners and rescuers are killed." Choppy again.
  • I have rewritten the sentences. - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Rachel gets caught and imprisoned by the Nazis." change to "Rache is captured and imprisoned by the Nazis." One should try to avoid the word "get" whenever possible because it sounds informal.
  • I changed the sentence to the proposed "is captured". - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "They have discovered the bug and use it make the resistance group listening to the transmitted sound" How about dropping "listening to the transmitted sound"?
  • I removed the "listening to the ...". - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "The country is liberated, and Rachel is imprisoned as traitor. It turns out that physician Hans Akkermans, who supposedly was in the resistance movement, was actually involved in the devastatingly ending refugee trips, thus enriching himself. This man tries to kill Rachel with a large dose of insulin. She manages to survive by eating a lot of chocolate as an antidote." Lots of problems here.
  • "It turns out" is a colloquialism and should be avoided.
    • I removed the "It turns out". - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "devastatingly ending refugee trips" why not just "devastating refugee trips"? (or did he end them?(in that case it would be "devastatingly ending the refugee trips"))
    • I changed it to "devastatingly ending the refugee trips". - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "The country is liberated, and Rachel is imprisoned as traitor." Why not "When the country is liberated, Rachel ..."
    • I changed the sentence. - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "thus enriching himself" How exactly did he enrich himself? Paid off by the Germans? Robbed the dead refugees?
    • I am not sure this is in the film, so I would like to leave it open. - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "This man tries to kill Rachel with a large dose of insulin. She manages to survive by eating a lot of chocolate as an antidote." This could be made one sentence. "manages to survive" and "a lot" are both informal.
    • I changed both elements. - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Rachel's innocence is revealed" Revealed by her or discovered by someone else?
  • I changed it into "Rachel proves her innocence". - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "together with a man from the resistance they smuggle the physician and the money and jewels he has stolen, together in a coffin, to a quiet place, where they seal the coffin and slowly kill him by suffocation." Polysyndeton? It's also very awkward.
  • I have rewritten this sentence completely. - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Much better. Now we know what the black book from the title is.--Supernumerary 23:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "easily adapts to each situation" Should be in the past tense and maybe use "coped".
  • I have changed the sentence. - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I changed it as well. Take a look and see which you prefer.--Supernumerary 23:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Things seem idyllic for Rachel and her family... until bombs start going off in the distance, an air raid siren goes off and soldiers take positions at the front of the kibbutz. It's October 1956, and the Suez Crisis has broken out."
  • Do not use an ellipsis! You are not building suspense for the story but trying to inform a reader.
    • I have rewritten the sentence. - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "bombs start going off" They hear bombs in the distance? "start going off" is informal.
    • I have changed this too. - Ilse@ 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikilink or explain "kibbutz".
    • I added a link to kibbutz. - Ilse@ 07:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "It's" should be "it is". Again formality is needed.
    • I changed it to "it is". - Ilse@ 07:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "has broken out" sounds informal.
    • I changed it to "started". - Ilse@ 07:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This paragraph is much better after your changes!--Supernumerary 23:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Cast

• For the cast section only use appositives for those characters not described in the plot.
  • I removed the appositives. - Ilse@ 06:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You went one step too far. You definitely need the "Actor as Character". I've added them in.--Supernumerary 20:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it would be better to keep them, despite WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. - Ilse@ 07:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • They're just guidelines, so you can break them if you want.--Supernumerary 20:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• You should explain who Kees, Joop, Theo, Rob, and Maarten are.--Supernumerary 23:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have added explainations. - Ilse@ 00:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Production

• The writing section of production needs to be in the past tense.
  • I changed some present tense to past tense, but not the generic statements about the film/story that remain true. - Ilse@ 06:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "In Black Book the family of Rachel Steinn tries to cross in the Biesbosch, where these attempts actually took place." Maybe say that she tried to cross there in the plot.
  • I changed the sentence. - Ilse@ 09:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "to 'cross' to" Why the single quotes?
  • The word crossen is used in Dutch specifically in referring to these attempts. I changed the sentence to make it clearer. - Ilse@ 09:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "entrapped by Dutch policemen" Where the entrapped or trapped?
  • Jews that tried to flee with their belongings were entrapped, robbed and killed. I changed the sentence to make it clearer. - Ilse@ 09:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "San Fu Maltha, who produced the film together with three other producers, tried to economize on different parts such as the scenes in Israel, that could have been left out without changing the plot, but this was not negotiable for Paul Verhoeven." Long sentence that needs to be rephrased or split.
  • I have spit the sentence. - Ilse@ 09:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "It is said that Paul Verhoeven and San Fu Maltha paid for the trip to Israel out of their own salaries." Said by whom?
  • I do not remember the source, so until I do I have <!-- hidden --> the sentence. - Ilse@ 10:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Because of financing problems the filming did not start as planned in 2004,[6] but was delayed until August 2005.[7]" There should not be a comma there. It's your call whether to move the ref though.
  • I removed the comma and moved the reference. - Ilse@ 09:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "news got out" informal
  • I changed it to "was announced". - Ilse@ 09:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "coproduction" is a red link? Look for an appropriate section in production or elsewhere.
  • I cannot find any appropriate section about coproductions. - Ilse@ 09:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Wikilink one of the euro signs.
  • I added a wikilink. - Ilse@ 09:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Production company Fu Works and the creditors settled the case." How did they settle it? (Oh and you have an extra space after the period.)
  • I changed the sentence. - Ilse@ 10:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "There was attentention for details in the film. Several requisites were reproduced from originals from the 1940s" "Attention" is misspelled. I think it should be "attention to details". Also "originals" and "from the 1940s" is redundant.
  • I removed redundant "from originals". - Ilse@ 10:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "1100 or 1200 extra" not sure about wikistyle, but I would say add commas.
  • I leave it like this. - Ilse@ 10:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Already during the shooting" drop the "already".
  • I removed the word "Already". - Ilse@ 10:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Reception

• "where it was part" change to "as part"
  • I changed it to "as part". - Ilse@ 10:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "HRH" What??
  • HRH means His Royal Highness, this is the formal style to refer to the prince, I included it in the link to make it more clear. - Ilse@ 06:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "were mayor of The Hague Wim Deetman, minister Hans Hoogervorst, and minister Karla Peijs." Appositives over one word should be set off with commas. I would suggest flipping what is the noun and what is the appositive here.
  • I flipped the noun and appositive for Wim Deetman. - Ilse@ 06:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "The Dutch press is divided about the film." Are they still?
  • I changed it into past tense. - Ilse@ 07:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Rutger Hauer" from Soldier of Orange?
  • She compares the two films and makes a remark about the main characters, I think "Rutger Hauer" should not be added in the first sentence. - Ilse@ 07:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Black book" should be italicized in the quote from the Observer, but I won't do it without checking the original.
  • It is bold in the original, so I didn't add italics in the quote. - Ilse@ 07:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• You consistently misspell "successful".
  • Thank you for changing these misspellings. - Ilse@ 07:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Golden Film (100,000 visitors)" Again I'm not sure if "visitors" is the right word (observers? spectators? audience?).
  • The Netherlands Film Fund uses 'cinema visits', 'visitors' and 'tickets sold' as equivalents in their (Dutch) press release. Since there are objections to 'visitors' I changed it to 'tickets sold'. - Ilse@ 07:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "most visited" viewed?
  • I changed this the same way as in the lead section. - Ilse@ 07:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "As of December 31, 2006 the box office gross-to-date" drop the "to-date", and change that sentence to the past tense.
  • I removed "-to-date". - Ilse@ 07:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "It won the award in three categories" maybe "it won in three categories"?
  • I changed it to "it won in three categories". - Ilse@ 07:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• "The film is the Dutch submission" tense?
  • I changed this the same way as in the lead section. - Ilse@ 07:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

List of nominations and awards

• It needs cites for the award section (even if they are repeats).
  • I added references. - Ilse@ 09:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Other

• You should consider adding what happened to their careers after the film, but it should pass GA regardless.--Supernumerary 01:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe it is still a little early to describe the influence of the film on the carreers of the actors. - Ilse@ 10:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have taken into account all the above remarks to improve the article. I hope it will pass the Good article nomination. - Ilse@ 11:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

• "With a story involving the tragic romance of a fatalistic, working-class hero who has become an outlaw and the upper-class daughter of a provincial governor, the movie is equal parts homage to and parody of Thai action movies of the 1950s and 1960s and melodramatic romantic tearjerkers." This sentence bothers me. First thing is the who clause needs to be off set to make it clear, especially because of the length of this sentence. "With a story involving" sounds wordy. Does the film parody all romantic tearjerkers or those from the same time as the action movies? You also mix calling it a "film" and a "movie". Pick one and be consistent. Here's a possible rephrasing, which I don't really like either, but it might help you out.
  • "The film centers on the tragic romance between a fatalistic, working-class hero, who has become an outlaw, and the upper-class daughter of a provincial governor. As such the film is equal parts homage to and parody of Thai action movies of the 1950s and 1960s and melodramatic romantic tearjerkers."
    • Took another shot at it.
• "the Dragons and Tigers Awards for Best New Director" Maybe you can find a wikilink for this, if not it's no big deal.
  • Vancouver International Film Festival article could stand some expansion to include details about this.
• "It was purchased for distribution in the United States by Miramax Films, which changed the ending and then shelved the film indefinitely." Rephrase from passive to active.
  • Done.
• You forgot one fair use rationale for Image:Tears5.jpg, and I also changed the fair use rationale for the poster to a more standard one. Otherwise they look good.
  • The one image I didn't upload. Surprised I missed it, though.

Plot and cast

• At first glance, the plot has lots of random wikilinks. White? Plain? Knife? Bullet? Beach? etc. Please cut out the unimportant ones.
  • I like white because it talks about what it represents. The others probably won't survive the cutting.
• The plot is approx. 1,890 words long. It needs to be condensed, and if that is not possible explain why.
  • Since condensing it will change everything, I won't proofread this section as my suggestions might end up being unnecessary. I'll gladly do it after the condensing though.
    • I knew it was too long, but had no idea it was that long. Yikes.
      • I've cut the plot down to 1,000 words, which is probably still too long. But have a look and see what you think, if you want.
• Are any of the other actors deserving of a wikilink in the cast section?
  • The other actors deserve a wikilink, but have no articles. I dislike the look of too many red links in cast sections, so ...
• Plot review follows
• "Dressed all in black and wearing a black cowboy hat, " I think you can cut the second black especially because you have a picture of it. Also specify the wikilink to the symbolism section.
• "The bullet ricochets around before it hits its target – a man's forehead." Why not simply "The bullet ricochets around before burrowing into a man's forehead."?
• "off a variety of items" possibly just "off of items" considering you wikilink Rube Goldberg
• How does the first paragraph, which is only two sentences, connect with the second one?
• "Mahesuan is bitter about Dum taking his place as the best gunman in the outlaw gang headed by the brutal Fai. Mahesuan finds Dum playing a harmonica. He knocks it out of Dum's hand and baits him into a gunfight. The quick-drawing Dum fires first. Mahesuan is not injured, but a dead snake drops from an overhanging tree branch onto Mahesuan's cowboy hat. Dum killed the venomous snake, saving Mahesuan's life." This is choppy; make it flow.
• "Dum then thinks back" You wikilink "thinks back" to "flashback", which does show that it is a flashback but only if someone clicks through. If it's important explicitly state it, otherwise leave it as is.
• "Dum then thinks back to his childhood 10 years ago during the Second World War, when Rumpoey and her father had to leave the city. They came to stay with Dum's father, a district chief, at their small farm in rural Thailand." He can't think back to what other people did when he wasn't there, so he should be the subject. Maybe:
  • "Dum then thinks back to his childhood 10 years ago during the Second World War, when Rumpoey and her father left the city to stay on Dum's father's small farm in rural Thailand."
• "which is called "Sala Awaiting the Maiden"" Why is this important? A wikilink (or a clause) to Sala would be nice to explain that.
• "Dum says a woodcutter built it to await the daughter of a wealthy family whom he had fallen in love with." You're missing a comma and "whom" currently refers to the wealthy family.
• "filled with some boys." Is the some needed?
• "On the way home, they collide with another boat that is filled with some boys. They taunt Rumpoey, and Dum fights with them. He is struck with an oar and the boat overturns. Dum rescues Rumpoey but is late in coming home. So he is punished by his father, who lashes the boy's back with a rattan cane. Rumpoey feels sorry for him and buys Dum a harmonica to replace the flute she broke." Needs to flow.
• "In shock at seeing Rumpoey's face, Dum is stabbed in the chest with his own knife and allows Kumjorn to escape." Ouch! I can see why he let him escape, but who stabbed him? (Active trumps passive most of the time.)
• "a gang of male students – the same boys from her childhood boat accident." Why not just a comma?
• "Dum comes to her rescue, but ends up expelled" You need to review comma usage. You use them when not needed and don't use them when needed. Your most common mistake is the one quoted, where you have a single subject with two verbs. Here a comma is unnecessary. Below you leave out a comma where you have two subjects with two verbs. In this case, a comma is necessary.
• "he’d given it" Don't use contractions.
• "Fai then hands Dum a pistol and tells him to finish the job of killing the men who murdered his father. Dum is now an outlaw." Join these two sentences.
• "Shifting back to the present, it is the night before Rumpoey's wedding." I'd make it "Shifting back to the present, where it is..."
• "Rumpoey tries to hang herself, but is stopped by her maid. Fai plans to attack the governor's mansion. Mahesuan, suspecting that Dum intentionally let Kumjorn go free, betrays Dum. A gun battle ensues, but Dum escapes." Choppiness caused by trying to link all plot lines together at once.
• Specify the wikilink for "white".
• "Fai's men attack and Mahesuan discovers Rumpoey. " Comma needed.
• "While carrying Rumpoey" Why is he carrying her?
• "A raindrop drips through a hole in the brim of Mahesuan's hat, distracting him. Dum fires first, blowing Mahesuan's head off." Join these two with a "when" or an "as".
• I would have made the comma changes myself, but I'm pressed for time at the moment.

Production

• "It also draws on 1960s and 1970s Thai action cinema, so-called by critics" While what it refers to should be obvious, I tend to use the noun if there is any doubt. "so-called" sounds really awkward. Why not just "called"? Or "know by critics as"?
  • Reworked that.
• "novels of Thai humorist Por Intharapalit and an old Thai pop ballad" Any appropriate wikilinks would be appreciated here.
  • I'll try to track down some info and start an article on Por Intharapalit.
• "Wisit said in an interview." Source?
  • An interview for the production notes. I've tacked the ref on at the end of each quote.
• I'm puzzled by whether "The Heavens Strike the Thief" should be capitalized and italicized in the lead, and if so should it be the same in Origins? Is it a common title in the English world, which is the way it comes across in the lead? In Origins it sounds like it's just a a translation, in which caseI would say no caps or italics.
  • It's not a standard English title, so I lower-cased it in the intro.
• "'depending on the film's context,' the director said. Source?
  • Same source as before.
• "Fah talai jone is also the Thai name for an herb, Andrographis paniculata." This has what to do with the price of tea in China? It's just tacked on and sounds like it was lifted from a trivia section. Put it in context, or if there is nothing beyond coincidence then just say "coincidentally".
  • I know that the director, like many Thais, takes great delight in puns and double meanings. At the cinema, silly puns will result in riotous laughter. It's really amazing. So probably the fact that there's an herb with the same name only heightens the meaning of the title. I reworked it so that this idea is clearer, I hope.
• "the directorial debut for Wisit" There's a case for using either "for" or "of" here, and they have different connotations. I don't know enough to have an opinion, but you should and I just wanted to alert you to it.
  • By Wisit?
    • That works too.
• "Production design was by Ek Iemchuen,[10]" Why is this cite in the middle of a sentence? I don't think you will be challenged to prove that Ek did the production design but that he was a classmate. Move the cite to the end.
  • Done.
• "likay (Thai folk opera)" I'm not a fan of parentheses. I'd say "likay, a form of Thai folk opera."
  • Or a Thai form of folk opera.
• "Wisit said in a 2001 interview." Is it really important where he said what he said? I don't think that's the case here, so you can drop it and let the cite do the work.
  • Done.
• "Over-saturated colors were used as part of the overall production design to reflect scenes of rural Thailand, which the director saw as bright and colorful." Consider dropping "as part of the overall production design".
  • Done
• "Walls on the sets and locations were painted pink or green, and lighting was used to achieve the desired effect, but the film was additionally treated in the color grading process." This is a run-on. Also what was the desired effect? If it's saturation just say so.
  • Done
• Nice work with the no-break space in 35 mm. :)
  • Thanks. I'm learning.
• "To experiment with the set design and lighting effects, Wisit was able to try them out in a commercial he directed for Wrangler Jeans, " "To experiment" and "to try them out" is redundant. Simplify.
  • Done.
• "whom the director said" Everytime the director says something I think it should be cited. I'm not sure if I'm the only one, but it's a good idea nonetheless.
  • Yes.
• "There are experienced actors in the cast as well, including Sombat Metanee and Naiyana Sheewanun, who worked in the era of Thai filmmaking that Wisit was trying to recreate." Very flat, try rephrasing.
  • Need to work on that some more. Can't think of any other way to say it.
• For the old-style marketing, what is the name of the book they made?
  • Same as the film.

Reception

• "in a wide release in Thai cinemas." What about changing the second "in" to a "to"?
  • Sure.
• "It won best costume design for designer Chaiwichit Somboon at the Thailand National Film Association Awards." Rephrase to avoid saying "design" and "designer".
  • Done.
• "The Bangkok Critics Assembly" wikilink?
  • Links provided to section of Cinema of Thailand article.
• "Ek Iemchuen" or "Ek Iamchuen"? (Oh damn, I just realized that's an "I" not a lower-case "L". Don't know how you could avoid that...)
  • IMDb really butchered the guy's name. Just did a correction.
• I'm totally for accent marks on "premiere", but that's just me.
  • Isn't premiere English? With the accents, it would be the French.
• Looking at the awards, you might want to reevaluate which ones you mention in the lead. You should mention some of the many Thai ones, or just that it won many Thai awards.
  • The Thai awards weren't that prestigious. If it had won best picture or best director I could see mentioning it up higher. It can be said in the intro, though, that it won many awards in Thailand.
• "It also had theatrical releases in the United Kingdom, France and Japan." This bothers me because it makes it sound like the film owns these things. I don't know if you understand that, but I'd change it to "It was also theatrically released in ..."
  • Done.
• "Because of its blending of genres, colorful production design and conspicuous action, it has achieved cult status." Seems like every film I find has a cult now. Can this be proved?
  • I have junked the cult status of the film, even though it probably exists. However, I can't prove it.
• You're mixing standards again. Either use ' "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet." ' or ' "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet". '.
  • What can I say? I'm an American working for a publication that uses British English. Most days, I don't know whether I'm coming or going.
• "Edelstein wrote in a review for the film's 2007 US release" Don't know if this clause is necessary. Completely up to you to keep or cut.
  • Cut it.

Distribution

• "A string of limited releases is set for January-March 2007 with a Region 1 DVD release planned thereafter. It is the original version of the film." Incorporate that last sentence like you did in the lead.
  • Okay.
• "Miramax changed the ending" Is there any more info on this? What did they change it to? Why change it? Why shelve it? etc.
  • Miramax routinely edited foreign films they purchased. I should be able to reference this. As for why it was shelved, that's more difficult to explain, but I'll try to find a reference.
• The section heading "Distribution and DVD" could be changed to just "Distribution".
  • Okay.

Soundtrack, miscellanae

• "I'm so alone, so lonesome I could die" Should there be a period for this last line?
  • I don't know. I try it out.
• "See also: Music of Thailand" Is this needed?
  • Probably not.
• Is this on any other language wiki?
  • I'll check. Seems like French Wikipedia should have it, and possibly Thai as well.
• I'm not sure, but I think categories are supposed to alphabetized.
  • You're right, they are.
• Where the hell did the interview come from? The link is to just a text dump.
  • It's a Japanese Thai film website. Parts of the interview are used in the Russian mirror of the Film Bangkok site. I believe it to be from the production notes.
• The linebreaks in the soundtrack section are annoying, but what can you do?
  • That's the standard from WP:ALBUM.
    • I figured as much, but the way the tracks are sometimes split across two lines is bothersome. It's only a minor aesthetics issue though.
• Nice use of the auto-PR, and this article should pass GA once the plot is fixed.--Supernumerary 04:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks, again, for your hard work on this. I promise this will be the last peer review I seek for awhile. I'll try to pitch in with some myself. — WiseKwai 07:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)