Wikipedia:Peer review/Wall Street (film)/archive1
- 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 think with a little more guidance and some suggestions, it will be ready for a GA review.
Thanks, J.D. (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Quick thoughts:
- Needs a larger lead section to summarize the article body better
- Will work on this.--J.D. (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Short paragraphs in "Plot" could be stitched together for fuller paragraphs
- Done.--J.D. (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Similar stitching could be done for other short paragraphs throughout the article
- Done.--J.D. (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Consider collapsing subsections in "Reaction" to one large section (since a paragraph per subsection isn't ideal)
- Done.--J.D. (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Infobox clean-up: Shorter list of names (perhaps just Douglas and Sheen), link to Cinema of the United States, remove "Followed by" field since nothing is being made actively
- Move "Themes" up above "Reaction" since it's a sub-topic that's more transcendental than contemporary reviews
- Done.--J.D. (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
How do you feel about the extent of sourcing in the article? Feel like there's anything more to dig up? —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I've dug up most of the resources I could find. The only thing really left is Stone's commentary for the DVD. I also need to flesh out the sources from Riordan's book as there are multiple page numbers, etc. Other than that, there isn't too much else out there for an older film like this that I could find that didn't already repeat what was found.--J.D. (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good, and great job with the stitching. Can this be done for the paragraphs in "Themes", too? Also, it may be worth revising the wording of the "Sequel" section to sound less like, "It's happening." (For example, is it really "currently" in pre-production? Seems more like it was in that stage once upon a time.) Any further suggestions I have will be for smaller items. I'll try to evaluate the article for these when I have time... if the PR remains quiet, feel free to nudge me on my user talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I condensed the paragraphs in the Themes section and tweaked some of the sentences in the Sequel section. So far, there is no word if the film is official in limbo so I think it's safe to say that it is still being developed.--J.D. (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- The film cannot have been in pre-production since 2007; it's defined as the stage right before production. From the looks of the citation, it was in the development stage and was being fast-tracked, but the latter action did not work out. So my best guess is that it's in mere development or placed on the backburner. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I condensed the paragraphs in the Themes section and tweaked some of the sentences in the Sequel section. So far, there is no word if the film is official in limbo so I think it's safe to say that it is still being developed.--J.D. (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good, and great job with the stitching. Can this be done for the paragraphs in "Themes", too? Also, it may be worth revising the wording of the "Sequel" section to sound less like, "It's happening." (For example, is it really "currently" in pre-production? Seems more like it was in that stage once upon a time.) Any further suggestions I have will be for smaller items. I'll try to evaluate the article for these when I have time... if the PR remains quiet, feel free to nudge me on my user talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)