Wikipedia:Peer review/Living in the Age of Airplanes/archive1

Living in the Age of Airplanes

I've listed this for PR before nominating this for good article. I'm aware that I'm not the best in terms of grammar, so any comments on that are welcome. Also on any aspect of this article, really. GeraldWL 12:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Prose comments from Wetrorave

It's ok to not be that good with grammar Gerald. As a non-native English speaker, my English was... well, not good. There were a lot of wrong uses of "in" and "on" on the articles I heavily edited. My prose is much better now with Everywhere at the End of Time but it's still not perfect. That's the cool thing about Wikipedia though, it improves your way of writing. It can be used for training it.

Comments below. Wetrorave (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, Wetrorave. I can totally relate to you as an ESL speaker myself, despite growing up speaking English more than Indonesian. Everyone thought I am fluent in English, when in reality I still have more to learn. I agree with you: editing is a good learning resource. GeraldWL 03:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• The infobox says two people wrote the narration, whereas the lead says it was a team of three?

  Ah, why didn't I got that! Add the third writer.

• "by Brian J. Terwilliger." → "by American filmmaker Brian J. Terwilliger."

  Don't think this is needed, looking at other film articles.

• Add the release year of One Six Right next to its mention, so that is turns from "One Six Right. He" to "One Six Right (2005). He" – do this for other names of works as well, where possible

  Done.

• "all of Earth's seven continents," → "Earth's seven continents" to diminish redundancy

  Done.

• For a better flow of prose: "the film is only 47 minutes and is divided into five chapters, an idea concerted during editing." → "the film's five chapters—a division conceived during editing—are only 47 minutes long when combined."

  Done.

More will follow later. Wetrorave (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Summary

• Retitle to something like "Plot" or "Synopsis" since this section deals with that

  I don't see the difference though.

• "to reach Antarctica, an extremely" → "to reach Antarctica; previously an extremely"

  Changed isolated to remote.

• "a tourist spot and supports research" → "a tourist spot that supports research"

  Done.

Production

Development and pre-production

• Like in the lead, "One Six Right, under" → " One Six Right (2005), under"

  I don't think in this case this is needed; the sentence alr starts with "In 2005".

Filming

• "The countries are Antarctica,[a] Argentina,[b] Australia,[c] Canada,[d] Cambodia,[e] Chile,[f] China,[g] Costa Rica,[h] Egypt,[i] England,[j] France,[k] Italy,[l] Kenya,[m] Maldives,[n] Mexico,[o] the Netherlands,[p] St. Marteen,[q] and the United States; within the latter, they filmed in the states of Alaska,[r] Arizona,[s] California,[t] Hawaii,[u] Nevada,[v] North Carolina,[w] Tennessee,[x] and Utah.[y][4]" – This can hardly be considered a sentence and has too many notes; List only the continents here, while the footnotes go into the detail of countries (so e.g. "America[a]": note A would be "Specifically at Argentina, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, and the United States").

  I understand why this is brought up, however I feel like it's important to mention the specific locations. Any way to do so?

  Wetrorave, I've shortened this bit. What do you think? GeraldWL 11:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  Looks good to me Gerald. Wetrorave (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Per WP:FOOTNOTE: "purchase[3] the seventh iteration of it.[9]" → "purchase the seventh iteration of it.[3][9]"

  Done.

• "care every time:[3] Equipment included" → "care every time:[3] equipment included

  The colon seems to be a typo; changed it to a period.

• "from Kenya as they travel to an Alaskan house," → "from Kenya as they travelled to an Alaskan house,"

  Stuff that happens in films usually use present tense.

• "Terwilliger wanted them to be really from Kenya," – to be really from Kenya? Can you explain what this means

  Basically, many documentaries usually claim something, when it's not the case. For example, Leaving Neverland has the MJ memorabilia burned, as if it's the real one, when it's just a replica. This film wants to stray away from such fakery. So at the film they claim the roses come from Kenya, in reality it really is from Kenya.

• "for days, i.e. 16 in the Maldives; bad weather further extended it." → "for days; they spent 16 of those in the Maldives, with bad weather further extending it."

  Done

• "crew from filming, like when the" → "crew from filming; one time, the" for a less informal prose

  Done.

• "land at a remote expanse, prompting the locals," → "land at a remote expanse; this prompted the locals,"

  Done

Post-production

• "dividing into chapters is a challenging process." → "dividing into chapters was described to be a challenging process." for neutrality

  Done

• "but those weren't planned too." → "though those were not planned."

  Done

• "was also frustrating," → "was also noted as frustrating,"

  Done

Themes

• Looks good

Release

• "solely used texts, shots unused in the film, and backgrounded by the song "Outro" by M83." → "solely used texts and shots unused in the film, with the song "Outro" by M83 playing in the background."

  Done

• "Screening continues long after: for example, in December 2 2017," – remove "for example," since the reader already knows they'll be given an example

  Done

• "as more quantity is purchased." → "as more of them are purchased."

  Done

• WP:FOOTNOTE: "The film was also viewable at iTunes[65] and YouTube Movies; Juice Distribution distributed it in the latter,[66]" → "The film was also viewable at iTunes and YouTube Movies;[65][66] Juice Distribution distributed it in the latter,[66]

  Moved the ref 65 to the end of the comma for space efficiency

Reception

• "Those positive of the film thought that the film succeeds in doing what it alleges to do, by showing the difficulty of life pre-aviation, the subtle impacts of aviation, cinematography, score, making it an overall emotional film;" – now that's a lot of film, try swapping it with "Living in the Age of Airplanes" or "the movie" in some places

  Changed to "it" and "one"; abstaining from "movie" per consistency with many film articles

• "the narration in the film did state" → "the narration in the film stated"

  Done

Terwilliger responded to criticism

• Retitle to "Terwilliger's response"

  Done

• Per MOS:', change all curly apostrophes (’) to straight ones (')

  Rm-ed all curlies.

See also/Notes

• Both look good

References and External links

• Both look good for GA as well

Overall it's a pretty decent article G. You shouldn't have much trouble getting it to GA level. Wetrorave (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Wetrorave, thanks for the helpful comments! I've responded to them all. GeraldWL 08:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Prose review from Shooterwalker

Going to take a stab at this and work through it section by section. Stay tuned. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• Is the word "epic" really accurate for a documentary, let alone a modern film? That's a term conventionally reserved for Lawrence of Arabia or The Ten Commandments. I'm willing to accept that the prose goes into more detail to explain how this term applies, but it would be such a re-frame that you're better off leaving it in the body of the article, and out of the lead. It clutters the opening sentence anyway.

• It doesn't seem wrong to be used as a documentary, as epic films can also mean a film with a sweeping production. However I agree with you that it is a bit too specific, so removed.

• "the need for flying in positivity" -> it's unclear what this means. Could probably just drop "in positivity" and it would be clearer.

• Basically, when they fly many people are disgruntled by the delays, security checks, etc. The film asks audiences to forget those. I've made it (maybe?) clearer.

• "including Terwilliger, who directed the film and also produced it with Bryan H. Carroll." -> "including producers Bryan H. Carroll and Brian J. Terwilliger, the latter also directing the film."

• Afraid I can't do that. Bryan Carroll did not write the narration.

• "He intended it as a relive of the emotions expressed when flying is new, and a celebration of the aviation industry. " -> "He intended it as a celebration of the aviation industry, and the feelings of flying for the first time."

• Partly done.

• ", filmed with the first entry of the Arri Alexa." -> ". "The production used the first entry of the Arri Alexa camera."

• Done

• The response to the criticism doesn't really have a clear meaning. "Unfounded" feels like he's trying to rebut some kind of fact, when he's really just responding to opinion. We can get into this more when I get to the criticism section.

• Changed sentence.

Summary

• Break the first sentence into two, as it's long and starts to join too many ideas into one phrase.

• Mind quoting/

• "The first chapter, "The World Before the Airplane", observes that from Africa around 200,000 years prior, the last place humans walked to was Ushuaia, Argentina, with many losing their lives along the tiring journey." -> "The first chapter, "The World Before the Airplane", begins by observing that ancient humans walked from Africa to Argentina 200,000 years ago, with many losing their lives along the difficult journey."

• Done, though changed Argentina to Ushuaia for specification.

• "though the slowness retains" -> can cut this without losing much meaning.

• Done.

• "The advent of aviation is thus considered revolutionary: where others could only speed at around 10 miles per hour (16 kilometres per hour), it could fly as fast as 500 miles per hour (800 kilometres per hour); it can also cross land and sea, and does not mandate airports." -> "it" is probably the wrong pronoun, and you could say "airplanes" to be more clear

• Done

• "Later in the film, it is described as science fiction." -> same idea here. Replace "it" with "airplanes" or "aviation"

• Moved to second paragraph.

• The second chapter, "The Portal to the Planet", observes the modern day, when aviation has become common and important, linking the entire world in short durations; it is thus said to be the equivalent of time travel, as well as the bridge between cultures. The chapter's title is derived from the narration: "When we enter an airport, we're entering a portal to the planet." -> (You probably don't need this much detail.) "The second chapter, "The Portal to the Planet", focuses on the modern day, when aviation has become common enough to connect the world."
• "The third chapter, "Redefining Remote", depicts Maldives, a country made of tiny islands and shallow waters, making building airports hard and ships impossible to approach, that is now accessible with the seaplane. Despite the lethal terrain, airplanes managed to reach Antarctica, a remote continent, making it a tourist and research spot." -> (same thing) "The third chapter, "Redefining Remote", shows how aviation has connected remote and otherwise unapproachable terrain, including Antartica and the Maldives."

• I don't think trimming those details are needed. This is a documentary, so those main points I think are worthy of noting. Also it will make the second and third paragraph imbalanced.

• "The fourth chapter, "The World Comes to Us", depicts cargo aviation, which allow products to be shipped worldwide quickly: flowers' perishable nature restricted shipments to just country-wide, but with cargo, it can reach anywhere long before it perishes. Thanks to air travel, Las Vegas became the largest convention hub. As the outcome of the many conventions, even those who have never flown are impacted by the rapidly-growing industries." -> (same thing) "The fourth chapter, "The World Comes to Us", depicts worldwide shipping by air, and highlights the growth of Las Vegas thanks to the import of perishable goods."

• Same with above. Also, your suggestion (at least to me) seems to suggest that Las Vegas advances due to cargo, but the film says it is due to the many people travelling there to attend conventions.

• "The final chapter, "Perspective", laments over that, as flying has become ordinary, it has no longer been joyous, and at times turned into frustration: "the golden age is over." -> "The final chapter, "Perspective", laments that flying has become so ordinary as to lose its joyousness, even becoming frustrating."

• Done

• We really don't need so many quotes. I recommend looking at other film summaries of even iconic films, to see how dialog is summarized, with minimal use of quotes.

• I tend to think of using quotes as when I want to better illustrate a point, as WP:RECEPTION says. There's only three quotes here (minus "the golden age is over"), so I don't think it's overuse.

I tend to believe that readers get clearer information when the same ideas are communicated in fewer words. But if you feel that any of this loses a critical piece of information, by all means, find a way to preserve it. But I've strived to simplify phrases that don't add much information, and are more complex than they need to be. Hope that helps so far, and I'll be back with more suggestions later. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Shooterwalker, thanks for the review so far! I can see your stance, and have done the changes you suggest, though some I did not with explanatory comments above. Look forward to more comments. GeraldWL 01:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

No pressure on any of these. Especially since this is a peer review. These comments are meant to be helpful, and if you think they move things in the wrong direction, you can always WP:IGNORE them. I'm sure anything truly important will come up with other editors. Let's continue. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Development and pre-production

• "an idea was conceived" -> I would avoid passive voice. Who conceived the idea?

  I agree after a re-read; changed.

• "He hoped that the film would make people "not look at flying the same way again."" -> "He hoped that people who watched the film would "not look at flying the same way again.""

  Done

• Yeah, based on how the word "epic" is used here, let alone in pre-production, I think it was right to strike it from the lead. I think it's more of a statement of scale, rather than the epic film genre, and I might even remove the wikilink.

  I would keep the wikilink, since according to our WP article, it has different meanings "and at other times simply synonymous with big-budget filmmaking."

• "Research was also done throughout the writing process." is sort of a vague statement. Of course there is research during a documentary. I would explain what kind of research, or just remove it.

  I agree. When I first wrote that I was also reluctant.

Filming

• "It began in 2010" -> "Filming began in 2010" (the pronoun isn't obvious, so an actual noun is needed)

  Done.

• "They were unable to use film camera due to financial and logistical shortcomings." -> this is unclear. maybe a grammar issue?

  Basically typical IMAX films use like 70mm film camera. This used a digital camera. Terwilliger stated that they didn't used film camera cuz a) it's much more expensive and b) because it's gonna be harder to carry around.

• "Filmed in dangerous terrains, the camera was given extreme care every time." -> the meaning of "extreme care" is unclear here too

  Basically extreme care: being carefully transported from a seaplane, gripped tight while walking. Any suggestions to substitute?

• "Equipment included prime and zoom lenses, "a triangle jib, sound equipment, and all sorts of support", which ultimately weighed over 160 pounds (73 kilograms)." -> (i don't think the quote adds anything) -> "The equipment ultimately weighed over 160 pounds, including sound, support, and a triangle jib."

  Done.

• "willingness" -> this is sort of unclear here. Willingness to do what?

  Change to "level of commitment"

• "Despite longtime experience living in Antarctica" -> "Despite his longtime experience living in Antarctica"

  Done

• I'd be wary of citing personnel to primary sources like the film's credits. Wikpiedia is not a directory, and articles are not meant to be an exhaustive list of, say, every cinematographer. Focus on the personnel who attracted reliable secondary coverage.

  I think it's important though. At first, readers are gonna think, "Okay, so Andrew is the guy filming everything." Then the Doug Allan bit came, and they're like "So Andrew didn't filmed everything." I think a brief breakdown of the other cinematographers is needed. I think it's also very brief, and not UNDUE.

• "with airplane shots benefiting flight data from FlightAware," -> the meaning here is unclear, and could also be a possible grammar issue

  Basically at the shots with airplanes, they need to know what planes they're gonna shoot, what time it's gonna land, etc. They used FlightAware for this. For me it's a nice elaboration of "Although some shots were planned". Any suggestions?

• "At times, the crew would revisit the same location where they have shot on and reshoot." -> "At times, the crew would revisit prior filming locations to reshoot."

  Done.

• The story about landing in Kenya seems to have nothing to do with the film production. It probably doesn't belong in the article at all. But citing this to the blu ray as a primary source, anything more than a single mention ("He described his most memorable experience after being forced to land in Kenya due to weather, where he became emotional seeing Kenyan youth excitedly scour the Eurocopter.") would be considered WP:UNDUE weight.

  Removed, though retained detail of the helicopter they filmed at.

Post-production

• "was chosen for this occupation" -> "was chosen as editor"

  Done

• "was described to be a challenging process" -> who described it?

  Done

• "stories thrown about" -> I'd find clearer language, as one doesn't usually throw a story. Or I'd remove this.

  Removed the latter two

• "Historical footages were licensed by" -> "Historical footage was licensed from"

  I don't think so, since there are more than one footages. Or am I missing some grammar stuff?

• Again, this article has almost too much detail, and I'd re-evaluate how many times you have tried to summarize the primary source itself through the film credits. Some of the most important film articles don't have this much detail about who participated in post-production, or the types of cameras and lenses used.

  I think it's important to credit the significant people though; the visual effects and historical footages are a significant thing in the film. Cameras and lenses are a common thing; lately I used it in Jojo Rabbit. I did not add the trivial people like pilots, budget cashier, etc.

• "Because the film is on a grand scale, an A-list narrator and score composer is needed." -> according to who? There are aspects that are starting to read like an WP:ADVERT, and it's important to keep some distance between the article and the film, to maintain a WP:NPOV.
• "It's really important for [the person] to really mean what he's saying." -> I don't think these quotes really add anything that isn't already said in the prose, but if you really insist that the quote is important and clear, then I'd use the quote instead of repeating the same thing twice.

  Done as well as for the above.

• "and agreed to be enlisted as the score composer" -> "and agreed to compose the film score."

  Done.

• "According to HuffPost, he "likened his approach in composing to that of a painter, with the film serving as the canvas and musical color being used to describe and support the story's emotional dynamics." -> This is more of a reception thing, and shouldn't be included in the development section. The development should be about the facts of the production, and not the opinions of journalists.

  Moved to recep.

• "He wanted the score to, like the film, have a spiritual feel,[28] thus having a recurring various instrumental tools, making the score categorized as world music, with it being significant for its diversity.[29]" -> "His goal was to give the score a spiritual feel to match the film's tone,[28] and chose a diverse set of instruments that in the style of world music.[29]"
• Once again, you're sourcing details about the music to the primary source, which is starting to give the article the tone of an WP:ADVERT, let alone providing WP:UNDUE weight.

  I think in such cases primary sources are a treasure. I think it's important to say the intentions of the composer, just like it's important to say the intentions of the filmmaker. Like, without primary sources most of the filming section won't exist.

• "It is observed that while the score has its Horner charm, there's an unexpected, soft theme in certain tracks, equivalent to the works of Thomas Newman." -> same issue as the huffington post comment about the music

  Seems to be more of analysis than reception.

• Again it isn't advisable to list the film credits in prose. You can't say someone "notably" acts as the film producer if no one has noted it, and this starts to get into WP:UNDUE weight. For what it's worth, a lot of this is covered in the infobox, and that's fine.

  Great point. Removed.

Let's leave it there for now. I would recommend you pay careful attention to overuse of primary sources, and overuse of opinions outside of the "reception" section. These are the types of things that can really undermine the WP:NPOV tone of the article. As editors, it is only natural that we have some passion about the articles we write, but it's important that the article focuses on facts from reliable independent sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Shooterwalker, I've done most of your comments, not done some, and I've also asked for elaboration at some. I've commented on your concern of the primary sources (TL;DR it's fine as long as it's not promotive). This film holds a very special place in me, and although I tried to be as objective as possible, I may have poured in some personal hype. So far I'm liking this discussion, and wanna thank you for quoting some of the flaws. GeraldWL 15:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your openness, and for sure you will encounter some of these comments at GA too. You can always wait until you get an opinion on a later review. In my experience on other articles about "big team art" (games, films, businesses), it's implied that the most notable people don't do everything, so I would discourage detailed lists of credits. At most, I would say "there was a team of cinematographers", but I feel like that's true of most cinematography teams. I think it's noble to want to give credit to lots of people, but it does become WP:UNDUE when we are out of step with what most independent secondary sources do. It's true that a lot of "development" sections are built on, say, interviews, but at least those have some level of proportionality. But even with those, we're supposed to take care that we report essential facts. Mining the credit sequence yourself risks violating our policy on original research, and does get into issues of WP:WEIGHT. A few other notes:

(Backtracking)

• Footage is one of those funny words, where it's inherently plural. You always get some footage, or more footage. There is no such thing as one footage.

  Ah, I see. Done.

• The FlightAware stuff, I guess it wasn't clear what FlightAware is, or how they used it. So just try to make it clear that it was some sort of flight data used for planning their shots.

  Done

• The extreme care part, your explanation on this talk page starts to feel sort of obvious. Most film crews would grip the camera tight when walking. I'd consider removing it.

  Done

Themes and Style

• I don't think an aviation industry blog is a reliable source, let alone independent enough.

  It doesn't look like a problematic article for me, and the article style is very scholarly. Ironically, I find the Variety source more blog-ish.

• "Elaborating the latter, he opined that it has the same, very-few amount of technical points as the IMAX documentary To Fly! (1976), or even less than it" -> This sort of contradicts what came before, which says that the film provides a technical view, but now you're saying it provides very few technical points.

  I don't think I said the film is in technical view. It has very few technical points, but more philosophical points, so that audiences who were more oriented towards the science and mechanics of flight can see a more non-technical view.

• I'd be careful with overuse of quotes, and I think you could summarize Paste's point in fewer words. As is, the quote feels more like something for the reception section, as it talks very little about themes or style.

  Done.

• Just for organization sake, I would separate the opinions of secondary sources from the opinions of the film's creators, and put them in separate paragraphs. It helps to see how the themes are viewed by each side.

  Done.

Release

• "Meanwhile, test screenings were conducted; Terwilliger said that the responses were generally positive" -> "Meanwhile, test screenings were conducted, with audiences responding positively."

  Done.

• "This does not change the copyright holder of the film, The Invisible Highway, LLC.[5]" -> again, this would be close to WP:OR and doesn't feel relevant

  Done.

• "president of distribution Mark Katz said that it is on par with their "mission to inspire, illuminate and teach." -> I feel like this quote just makes the sentence run on without adding much informative value

  I just think it's informative to include why the film was acquired by NatGeo.

• "The film premiered on April 6, 2015, on an exclusive 2-hour-6-minute Emirates Airbus A380 flight under the flight number EK/UAE1400. Taking off and landing at Los Angeles International Airport, it flew over Hollywood and circled the nearby vicinity of the Pacific Ocean with a cruising altitude of 24,000 feet." -> again, this is another example where you dig into a lot of detail from a primary source, and it seems to lose proportion for the average reader. These are the risks of WP:OR from primary sources. I want to emphasize, this isn't a criticism of you, it's more that assembling these kinds of details takes you into an original work instead of a summary of what reliable sources have said.

  Well in the special features, it is said that the flight was purposefully set to fly over Hollywood (film industry, blablabla), so I think it's significant. I removed the cruising altitude bit.

• Pulling marketing information from tweets is the same risk. I don't think you need to mention every marketing effort, especially since it can even change the tone of the article to one that's driven by marketing. Be driven by what secondary sources have said about the film and its release.

  Removed the JetbLue; I think the poster is an important one.

• By the same tone, I don't need to know about a Facebook post telling me that they are manufacturing blu ray discs.

  Done.

• Pulling information from the Amazon product page pretty much turns this article into marketing for the film.

  I don't think it's marketing as it's just stating the dubs and subs, however I removed them anyways due to being trivia.

• Aside from issues with WP:PROMOTION, this section's detail about marketing and product details make this article more difficult to follow. Compare your section with Avengers:_Endgame#Release, which is (a) a much heavier marketing effort, (b) yet still a shorter and clearer section, and (c) based on secondary sources instead of primary sources. This should be your goal when writing the section.

  The article was expanded by Some Dude of North Carolina. No offense to him-- amazing, amazing person-- but he has a style of keeping release section shorts to just the very main releases, like premiere and American release. I don't think the release section is problematic.

Music

• The entire music section is based on primary or affiliated sources. Music is near and dear to my heart too, but if nobody has written anything about it but you, then this is WP:OR.

  I don't see problematic or inaccurate content here though.

Reception

• By the same token, I would remove the film's own website from the reception, as this would be WP:NPOV. I understand that the film is trying to highlight the best comments about it, but that's exactly why it's WP:NPOV issue, and why we don't cite a film's reception to its own website.

  I think highlighting notable people's comments is important, especially as they have expertise in said industry.

• I'm wary of citing aviation industry publications, as neither reliable nor independent. But if you insist on using them, I would separate them from other secondary sources into their own paragraph. Even perhaps its own section.

  I would reconsider this, as I've already made a positive-negative-positiveagreeswithnegative layout.

• Blu-ray.com isn't a reliable source for reviews or reception.

  From my discussion with Some Dude, Blu-ray.com was marked unreliable due to its database bit. The review, however, is not user-generated.

• Common sense media isn't used for reviews or reception either.

  It is considered WP:RSP-reliable, and has been used in plenty articles.

• While the prose could use some work, a more fundamental issue with this section is its length, considering the relatively few secondary sources. Before diving in on the prose, you would need to:

1. Remove some of the more questionable sources (the film's own website, bluray.com, common sense media, movie wave, nights and weekends, the promotional/announcement pages of museums, tweets...)
2. Clearly separate the aviation industry publications from reliable independent film reviewers. I'd question whether this should use aviation industry publications at all, but at least put them into their own section so readers can assess the different points of view in an organized and proportional way.
3. The independent secondary sources you do use are good, but you sometimes cite them multiple times. Rather than trying to summarize every point of the reviews, you should focus on each review's main point.

Movie Wave is okay as it has been acknowledged by a renowned association dedicated to music criticism. I've put an invisible comment explaining why NaW is reliable. I've followed all those aviation publications as an avgeek myself; I've never spotted them stating inaccuracies, and their reviews are also good. They're also used in plenty FAs, such as the recently-TFAed Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service (Australian Aviation).

Terwilliger's response to criticism

• The multiple paragraph quote should be shortened and summarized into prose.

  I find it hard to paraphrase the quote. It also looks good on its own.

• Given that Terwilliger is responding to criticism over a plane crash, was there any news about the plane crash? It feels odd to include his response to it, without context of what people said when it happened.

  Mind specifying what needs to be added?

That should cover everything. This is a peer review and you'll ultimately encounter other reviewers through the GA process, let alone through ordinary editing. But take whatever parts you find constructive, as it will prepare you for the next steps. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Shooterwalker, this has been an awesome peer review, thanks a lot. I've responded to the remaining comments, done certain points, and inquired the last one. I usually do PRs before GAs because of like you stated, it will prepare me for the reviews. GeraldWL 07:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Remaining comments from Shooterwalker

Sounds good. I leave my suggestions to your discretion and to the discretion of other reviewers. And admittedly this is out of my usual area of review, where the Video Games WikiProject tends to be pretty hard about WP:UNDUE weight, WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, and WP:RELIABLESOURCEs. I'll list a few outstanding issues for your consideration, but I think you can try your hand at WP:GA and see how it goes.

1. Overuse of lengthy quotes, particularly from the film's creators. (WP:MOSQUOTE / WP:WEIGHT)
2. Over reliance on primary sources. Particularly the landing pages for distribution services and the film's official website. Sections that are written from the film's credits also strike me as disproportionate and potentially a problem for a good article. (WP:PRIMARY / WP:VENDOR / WP:NPOV / WP:OR)
3. The reliability of certain film reviews, including blogs. (WP:RS/SPS)
4. Clearly attributing reviews from the aviation industry, instead of blending them in with more independent reviews. (WP:NPOV / WP:BALANCE)
5. Reducing the number of times you repeatedly cite the same reviewer, instead focusing on their main point. (WP:WEIGHT / WP:MOS)
6. Covering the director's response to the film composer's death in a plane crash, without covering the plane crash itself also seems like an omission. Particularly because the plane crash was covered in numerous sources, and the director's response is buried on a primary website.

Of course, this is just my impression based on my experience as an editor. It's documented here for your benefit, either way. Good luck and happy editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)