Wikipedia:Peer review/The Ninth Gate/archive1

The Ninth Gate

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

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of work has gone into it and I would welcome any suggestions or comments to improve it so that it will be ready for a GA review.

Thanks, J.D. (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Seegoon

When you mention The Nine Gates of the Kingdom of Shadows in the opening paragraph, could you clarify that it is fictional? I know it is sorta obvious, but it's equally conceivable that a film be made about a real book and author.
The first sentence of the lead's second paragraph snakes a bit.
"The Ninth Gate managed to turn a profit" — how about a 'however' or 'nevertheless' in there somewhere, to indicate this being the case in spite of its poor reception?
I don't know what the manual of style says, but should there be a hyphen between 17th and century?
'the Ceniza brothers (Jose Lopez Rodero)' — are they both played by the same actor? It seems so. If that's the case, maybe you could briefly explain this within the parentheses.
- I can see that this is explained further on in the Cast and characters section. Whether you mention it in the Plot section is up to you; the line on this actor in Cast and characters needs a cleanup regardless.
The first sentence in Production is ugly and a bit unclear, as is the second.
"Pérez-Reverte's book featured several intertwined plots and so Polanski decided to write his own draft with long-time screenwriting partner, John Brownjohn" — I don't understand the cause and effect here; it is implied that the intertwined plots necessitated Polanski going to this particular colleague. It could do with some clarification.
"He wanted to have fun with the genre" — you can make this flow more nicely I imagine.
"While reading the book, Polanski thought of Johnny Depp as Corso." — first, this could be more elegantly worded (I've done this in the simplest way possible, but it can definitely be prettier). Secondly, it could do with citation. In fact, on closer reading of that entire paragraph, it could do with a significant redraft. Not only is it a touch stilted, it seems contradictory. Did Polanski want Depp from the offset or not?
With regards to Production's last paragraph: is all of this contained within that one inline reference? If so, it's not clear.
In Soundtrack, I have no idea what "a vocalize" is. Also, be consistent with 'vocalise' and 'vocalize'.
The last track needs a track length.
The metacritic score needs citing.
Could you dig up any more information on Polanski pocketing some of the proceeds? It seems like a pretty important story. Moreover, I don't think it belongs in Reaction.

All in all, a decent and interesting article on a film that I couldn't say the same for. Nor the book, incidentally. Seegoon (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]