Wikipedia:Peer review/Che (film)/archive2

Che (film)

Previous 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 July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to see what else needs to be done to this article in order to get it ready for a FA review.

Thanks, J.D. (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The article seems very comprehensive; there do, however, seem to be a fair number of (mainly) prose issues that need attention. I have only looked in depth at the lead, so far:-

• There is too much detail in the lead section, especially with all the release information in the third paragraph. The lead should be an overview, in summary style. These details belong in the body of the article, but not here.
• WP:LEAD emphasises that, among other things, the lead should "draw the reader into the article", using "accessible" language. Personally, I doubt whether the second sentence meets this requirement: "Rather than a chronological recitation, the films offer an elliptical series of interspersed moments along the overall timeline." I can just about follow this, but surely it can be said more simply?
• Likewise, terms like "narrative linearity" and "aspect ratios" should be avoided in the lead. I know they're linked, but to the general reader they are likely to be off-putting.
• "...the Caribbean island..." Why not specify Cuba?
• First sentence of second lead paragraph is too long. Suggest full stop after "Bolivia". Then reword: "When financing fell through, Malick left the project, and subsequently Soderbergh agreed to direct the film."
• "...should also be depicted in the film." The words "in the film" are redundant.
• Not grammatical: "Peter Buchman was hired to write the screenplay and result was so long that Soderbergh decided to divide the film into two parts: one chronicling Cuba and other depicting Bolivia." Suggest colon after "screenplay"; replace "and result" with "the script", replace colon with a comma.
• "Filmmakers" sounds disembodied, unless preceded by "the". Thus "The filmmakers..."
• "...the decision also made it difficult..." "also" is unnecessary
• "Soderbergh shot the films back-to-back in the beginning of July 2007.." Doesn't make sense. Do you mean he started filming at the beginning of July 2007?
• "There, it received mixed reviews, and Del Toro won the Best Actor Award." These are two disconnected events, so "and" is inappropriate. I suggest a complete revision of the sentence: "Although Del Toro won the Best Actor Award, the film received mixed reviews" - or some such
• "...in order to qualify..." Delete "in order" (frowned on in Wikipedia)
• Much of the rest of this paragraph is covered by my earlier comment about over-detailing and should be cut considerably.
• Some odd terms used in the lead:-
  • "recitation" ("account", probably, if this sentence survives)
  • "ill-fated demise": Weird!
  • "to only depict" ("limited to")

Obviously it will take a while to complete the review, and since I have many other review commitments, as well as my own work, I will have to do it in rather a piecemeal fashion. Anyhow, there's quite a bit for you to be getting on with – I'll be back later.

These are great comments and thanks so much for taking the time. I will get to work on tweaking the lead paragraph. You're right about the size, though. He needs to be trimmed.--J.D. (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Further Comments

• Plot
  • The dividing line between the two films should be indicated
  • The numbering of days should be explained
  • Why is one statement in parentheses? Is this not part of the film?
  • "...the guerrillas capture some Bolivian soldiers who refuse to join the revolution and instead return to their villages." Please clarify: did these soldiers escape, were they released, or what?
  • Who captured Debray?
• Development
  • "Del Toro then personally met..."; "personally" is redundant
  • This same sentence ought to be split. I suggest "...and childhood friends.[5] He traveled to Cuba, where he met Guevara's widow..."
  • Awkward phrasing: "...who expressed that he was happy for the "serious" research being undertaken." I would simplify, to "who expressed approval of the "serious" research being undertaken."
  • "...several guerrillas who fought alongside him in Cuba." "him" ought to be specified as Guevara."
  • "While researching on both films..." Did he have two films in mind at this stage, or would it be better to refer to "the project"?
  • "In his encounters..." → "In encounters..."
  • The last sentence of this section does not seem to belong in "Development". It seems rather a post-production comment.

Sorry, that's all I can do for the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Continuing

• Screenplay
  • "After a year-and-a-half, the financing had not come together entirely and Malick left to make The New World, a film about Jamestown, Virginia." This sentence is rather loosely written. It has no timeframe (a year-and-a-half from when?), "the financing" of what?, "had not come together entirely" is vague. The details of Malick's next project are irrelevant to this article.
  • What are these "multi-territory deals"?
  • A paragraph break is necessary after ref [11] (the subject matter changes).
  • I have repunctuated the Peter Buchman sentence, but shouldn't it be "a script he worked on", rather than "a script he worked"?
  • Since Buchman, rather than Alexander the Great, spent a year reading books about Guevara, the sentence should begin: "Buchman spent a year..."
  • "...which he gave three storylines." Suggest "to which he gave three storylines."
  • "Buchman found that the problem with containing all of these stories in one film was that he had to condense time and this distorted history." There are rather a lot of awkwardly-phrased sentences like this. I can't list them all, but it does highlight the need for the services of a sharp copyeditor. For this sentence I suggest "Buchman found that to contain all these stories in one film meant that he had to condense time and distort history."
  • "Buchman went back and with Del Toro expanded the Cuban story for The Argentine." Apart from the mention at the beginning of the lead, this is the first reference to the first film being called The Argentine. This needs to be properly indroduced here. I don't like the formulation "Buchman went back..." (went back where?). So I would refashion the whole sentence: "Buchman together with Del Toro expanded the Cuban story for the first film, which the decided to call The Argentine."
  • Last sentence of para 2 needs a comma, after either "U.S. State Department" or "New York", depending on what your intended meaning is.
  • "The original source material for these scripts..." "These" is inappropriate; the scripts were not the subject of the previous sentence.
  • "From there, he drew on interviews with people who knew Guevara from both of those time periods and read every book available that pertained to both Cuba and Bolivia." "From there..." – from where? And "he" needs to be specified. Perhaps the sentence should begin "After this, Soderbergh drew on interviews..." Also, "of" is redundant, and a comma is needed after "time periods".
  • Watch for unnecessary overdetailing. Example: "They interviewed them individually and then Pombo and Benigno together about their experiences in Cuba and Bolivia." "They interviewed them about their experiences in Cuba and Bolivia" is sufficient.
  • Last sentence of this paragraph needs splitting; too many facts, too many "ands" for a single sentence.

• Financing
  • "Initially, Che was going to be made in English and a strong interest in financing it was met" Terribly awkward. Suggest "Initially, Che was going to be made with English dialogue, and interest in financing it was strong." You should also indicate from whom this interest came. The sentence should end at this point. New sentence: "However, when the..."
  • "break it up" → "subdivide it"
  • Watch multi-clause sentences

• Principal photography
  • "Doubling Santa Clara proved to be difficult because it was a certain size and had a certain look." Not at all clear on first reading. Try: "Doubling for the Cuban town of Santa Clara proved difficult because of its distinctive physical features."
  • What does "Vera Cruz/Tucatan" mean? Should the slash be an "and"? And shouldn't you say that these places are in Mexico?
  • Second paragraph: overdetailed (do we really need that stuff about their being delayed for a week in Los Angeles while waiting for work papers, or the week's delay in getting the prototypes?). Come to think of it, why did they need Spanish papers?
  • "The film is a tribute to the Marxist notion of advancement..." Too direct a statement. You could perhaps get away with "According to X, the film is a tribute..." etc, but as it stands, despite the citation, it ads like a declarative statement.

Look, I'm sorry, but this review is taking up too much time. I've been trying to reduce the reportage by doing some copyedits as I go through, but frankly, the prose needs more attention than I have time to give it. Can I briefly summarise what I see as the main prose points, and leave you to work on them?

• Way too much small detail, which gets in the way of the article narrative
• Overlong sentences with multiple clauses and too many "ands"
• General wordiness; for example, instead of saying things like "He went..." you tend to say things like "He decided that he would go..." Hundreds of unnecessary words could be cut out if you worked on this aspect of the prose.
• Writing is sometimes from a specialist angle which doesn't help the general reader. For example, in this photography section you mention "the new RED One" without explaining that this is a camera. OK, you link it, but that's not sufficient - you should say "the new RED One digital camera".

I hope you won't be disheartened by this rather negative-sounding judgement, but basically the prose needs lots of work, throughout. My detailed comments and copyedits in the earlier stages may help, but I don't have time to continue in this way. I'll try and keep an eye on the article, perhaps offer the occasional edit, but your best bet might be to find another film writer who is prepared to copyedit. Best wishes, Brianboulton (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all of your comments and taking the time to go through as much as you did. I really do appreciate it. It gives me a lot to work with.--J.D. (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)