Wikipedia:Peer review/Loving (2016 film)/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
Suggested by the mention of "Loving Day in the United States (1967)" in the current edition of "On this day..." (June 12 [UTC]). Based on the true story of Richard and Mildred Loving, whose Supreme Court case made civil rights history and effectively legalised interracial marriage in Virginia. Its 406 references at press time are the most this contributor has ever seen for a film article--possibly an all-time project record! (And you thought 250 or so was enough even for Hollywood blockbusters and all-time classics of old.) Reassessed as B-class by yours truly, minutes in advance of this PR; won't be surprised to see this hit the GAN queue in a matter of weeks.
Believe it or not, this marks my first appearance in the PR arena since summer 2011. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Comments from Z1720
[edit]Comments after a quick skim:
- The Cast section has very long paragraphs. I suggest reading The Dark Knight, a recently successful FAC, on ideas of how to split up this section and remove or remove information that is too specific.
- "to which it received universal acclaim.[122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129]" Are this many citations necessary? Lots of citations make the article unappealing to readers and are redundant.
- Be careful with idioms used throughout the article. For example, "among others, pegged it as an Oscar contender." (identified it as an Oscar contender), " slammed Loving's omission as a "snub."" (criticised Loving's omission)
- The Reception section falls into the "X said Y" formatting and relies too much on quotations from the sources. See WP:RECEPTION for ideas on how to avoid this, including grouping reviews by parts of the movie (plot, cinematography, acting, etc.) instead of listing what each said.
- The number of citations is mentioned in this PR. Are the citations of the highest quality? Since you have so many sources, the article can remove the ones from less-reputable or smaller media outlets and just keep the higher quality sources.
Once this is fixed up and passes a GAN, I recommend exploring an FAC run. Z1720 (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)