Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Girolamo Savonarola/list of film formats/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Girolamo Savonarola/list of film formats[edit]

Ready to dump this into a new article, but just wanted to some last looks beforehand. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 00:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, that's a lot of information. Firstly, once this goes into an article it will need an introduction and references. It would be nice to have an explanation of what some of the headers are (e.g. Negative pulldown) and why they are important / how they affect the film. Also it might be nice to have the country and possibly place of creation, though the table is very crowded as it is. CheekyMonkey 15:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks! I've tried a stab at a pitiful introduction and some further explanation of what qualifies, as well as a table legend. I'm going back to retrieve my references, so that may take a while longer to complete... I'm going to pass on the country/place of creation idea, as I think that the Creator column will probably do better to illuminate the answer to that question; I only list the country if I can't find any information on the creators. Anything else? Thanks again, Girolamo Savonarola 23:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The intro and legend is a good start; the necessary characteristics section is definately useful. I think the creator column as it is (country if creator isn't known) is the best solution. As for other comments, if you intend to take this to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates then something that will probably be raised is the ratio of red links to blue links (which at the moment appears to be roughly 2:1), so some stub articles will be needed. Also the addition of some pictures may be suggested, although this isn't a FL criteria per se. CheekyMonkey 00:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks again for the quick response. But let me get this straight - a FL nomination would be better served if I made a bunch of quick fluff stub articles for the sake of minimizing red linkage? Yikes. Girolamo Savonarola 01:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hee hee, yes that is generally the case. Personally red links don't worry me too much but it is mentioned under point 2 of Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_list and people will prefer "a large majority" of the links to be blue. It is a lot of work though. CheekyMonkey 13:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The header "Necessary characteristics" lists characteristics a film must meet to be in the list. However, readers encountering the header would expect characteristics a film must meet to be a film (or a successful format or something along those lines). An informal, nonencyclopedic article might say something like "What's in this list" where you wrote "Necessary characteristics." Can you phrase it along the lines of "What's in"? Or remove the header, placing this text in the intro section? Also, a column header says "First known film." The entries in the column are motion pictures. The use of the word "film" to mean both the medium and the cinematic work is confusing. Even though both uses are widespread, it makes sense to search for different words to prevent confusion. Any thoughts? Fg2 05:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments! I'm not certain I quite understand your comments regarding the characteristics section. Are you asking for me to change the heading to something informal and nonencyclopedic? Also, about the expectation that readers will mistake these characteristics for what a film must meet to be considered a film...while that wasn't what I was intending to write, I've looked over the requirements and...well, they seem like a fair definition to me. But let me know what you think might need changes. I've changed "first known film" to "first known work", although I think that the obvious fact that there is a column with individual entries obviates the fact that we're discussing motion pictures, not media. Again, many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 20:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't clear. No, I would not advocate doing something nonencyclopedic. What I hope for, though, is a section header that says, in an encyclopedic way, what I was only able to express informally. Something along the lines of "What this list contains" or "Criteria for being in this list." So that readers will know that the ensuing paragraph is about the list, not about films. When I read the header "Necessary characteristics" I anticipated a paragraph about characteristics that a film would have to possess to be successful, or something like that. In other words, I found the heading confusing.
I'm also not advocating a change in the content of the section. It seems reasonable to list the criteria for inclusion in the list.
Thank you for the change to the column header. It seems more clearly descriptive now.
Fg2 01:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, thanks. Does this work better for you now? Girolamo Savonarola 03:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It better describes the text that follows it. Thanks! Fg2 03:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Girolamo_Savonarola/list_of_film_formats/archive1&oldid=192047348"