Wikipedia:Peer review/Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story/archive1

Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like feedback on what to improve before nominating it for FAC. I will happily return the favour by reviewing any nomination of your choice.

Thanks, Damien Linnane (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

In the lead, I would add the year that the biography and Bruce Lee: The Biography were published. I think it would be helpful to provide readers with a better sense of the timeline or chronology.
I have a question about the "biography" word choice in this part: (Cohen decided that rather than creating a traditional biography) I have more often seen the word associated with a book rather than a movie or a script. Would biographical film or biopic be more suitable here? I could be over-thinking it, but since I thought about it while reading this part, I thought I should still raise it to your attention even if the current wording is correct.
I am uncertain if the citations in the infobox are needed as the budget and box office should also be mentioned and sourced in the body of the article. I have seen it done for some featured articles, like Kal Ho Naa Ho, but again, I just wanted to bring it to your attention.

I'll leave them in for now, but I'll keep it in mind.

I think it should be fine, especially with the additional citation for the running time. Aoba47 (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the citations are kept in the infobox, I would add a citation for the running time, as I do not see it supported in the body of the article.
For this part, (haunting a young Bruce, and subsequently enrolls Bruce under the tutelage), I would change the second instance of "Bruce" to "him" as I think it would be understood from context, and it would cut down on the amount of times "Bruce" is said in the sentence.
For this part, (Bruce fights with British sailors harassing a young Chinese woman), should it be "fights" instead of "fights with"? I am just curious because when I initially read the sentence, I thought it mean he fought alongside (i.e. "with") with these sailors until reading the later half of the sentence.
For this part, (where he meets Linda,), I would use Linda's full name since this is the first time she is mentioned in the body of the article.

I think this poses a bit of an issue, as her name in the film is Linda Lee, though at the time point she is introduced in the film her name would have been Linda Emery. I feel like calling her Linda Lee would be anachronistic, and calling her Linda Emery would be confusing for the reader.

Thank you for bringing this up. I agree with your reasoning. Aoba47 (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of a clarification question. In this article, the book is called The Tao of Jeet Kune Do, but in its Wikipedia entry, it leaves out the "The" in the beginning. Which way is correct?
I think you can just say "film" instead of "feature film".
I am a little confused by this part, (being shown and beaten against his own grave). Should it be (being shown beaten against his own grave) instead?
I would avoid repeating "film" twice in this sentence: (The film ends during a shot of the final scene of Enter the Dragon, the film that would make Lee an international star.)
The caption for the Jason Scott Lee image should have a period since it is a full sentence.
For this part, (saying he brought intelligence and charm to the role), I think the citations should be in numeric order.
For this part, (On Rotten Tomatoes it has an approval rating of 71%), I would put a comma after "Rotten Tomatoes".
Is the video game notable enough for inclusion in the lead?

Yeah I think so. Let me know if you think the placement isn't OK or if it should be reworded.

Looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the historical accuracies have their own section, I think this topic should briefly addressed in the lead.

I've done some minor rewording to touch on this issue. Let me know if you think it needs more or if it should be done differently. I don't think it's worth mentioning minor inaccuracies in the lead, such as that plot elements were condensed, as it's my understanding that's quite common in biopics.

Thank you for the clarification. I agree with your reasoning. Aoba47 (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work with the article. This is what I have noticed from my first read-through. Let me know if any of comments require further clarification. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the review Aoba47. Any point not replied to above has been addressed in the manner you suggested or very similarly. If you could review the responses and add anything further regarding them I would really appreciate it. Thanks so much. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. This looks ready for a FAC to me. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC, which is for an article about a very different film though both were released in the 1990s lol. Either way, I am glad I could help. Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pseud14[edit]

"Bruce works as a dishwasher at a Chinese restaurant, until getting in a violent brawl with four of the cooks." - perhaps it could be stated "until he gets in a violent brawl..."
"but his Chinese peers demand he not train non-Chinese people" - perhaps maybe state this as "his Chinese peers demand he only train Chinese people"
Under Filming, "was set in San Fransisco" - very minor typo
Under Filming, "thought the columns are exact replicas" - minor one, maybe you meant 'though'
Under Post-production, "in a bid bid to move" - repetition
"Richard Harrington of The Washington Post, gave a positive review, praising the film's pace" - perhaps we can remove "gave a positive review and instead state it as "Richard Harrington of The Washington Post praised the film's pace..." Since critical response already mentions reviews were positive.
"Conversely, Sheila Johnston from The Independent gave a negative review" - perhaps this can be stated as "While Sheila Johnston from The Independent praised Jason's performance, she was critical that the film "leaps about more wildly …" -- if that structure works for you.

I hope these comments are helpful, few minor things as some may already have been addressed in the above comments by Aoba. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, they are much appreciated. I've implemented all but the last one which I'd rather keep as is for the time being. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]