Wikipedia:Peer review/My Own Private Idaho/archive1

My Own Private Idaho

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of work has been put into this article and I would appreciate any comments and/or suggestions that would help ready it for GA status.

Thanks, J.D. (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I have looked at the lead, the Plot and the Production sections, doing light copyedits as I read through. Here are the points which I think need attention, or explanation. If you would like to respond to these I will complete a review of the remaining sections.

• Lead:
  • "...realizing that it dealt with the subject of street hustlers better than what he had written." This is not quite grammatical. It probably needs rephrasing along the lines: "...realizing that Rechy's treatment of the subject of street hustlers was better than his own."

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• • "...and went on to receive largely positive reviews from established critics like Roger Ebert and publications like The New York Times and Entertainment Weekly." There are several awkwardnesses here: "went on to receive" should be "received"; why say "like Roy Ebert" when you mean Roy Ebert, or publications "like the New York Times" when you mean the NYT? A possible rephrasing: "...and received largely positive reviews, from critics including Roger Ebert and those of The New York Times and Entertainment Weekly."

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• • I am rather confused by "The film made over $6.4 million in North America, above its estimated budget of $2.5 million." I understand what the £6.4 million is, but what is this budget figure? If it is the estimated cost of the film, why are we comparing actual income with estimated cost?

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Plot
  • "Mike wakes up to being fellated by a client." This sentence makes no sense unless we know that Mike is a gay street hustler, which we are not told until the next paragraph. Bring forward the description of Mike.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• • "After his hotel encounter in Seattle..." What encounter? If it is the fellatio episode, this should be clarified.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Some qualification of Mike's gayness is necessary, in view of "While preparing to have sex with the woman, Mike..."

Could you clarify what you mean by this?--J.D. (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Some prose link should be inserted to connect third and fourth paragraphs, otherwise the jump to Italy is too sudden.
  • "a posh restaurant" reads badly (too slangy). Perhaps "fashionable"?

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Production
  • Numerous confusions in the first paragraph. I have cleared up some through copyedits, but:-
    • "While editing Mala Noche..." Needs a date, also a word of explanation, thus: "In 19xx, while editing his film Mala Noche,..."

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • "...a source of inspiration for the character of Mike in the film." As the last film mentioned was Mala Noche, the sentence has to end differently.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • "Parker also had a friend named Scott but in the script Van Sant made him a rich kid." I work this out to mean that the real-life Michael Parker had a friend named Scott, a street kid like himself. For his film, Van Sant adapted the Scott character to that of a rich kid. Your sentence has to be rewritten to make this meaning clearer.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • The Chimes of Midnight sentence would be best omitted here - it is dealt with in the following paragraph.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• • (Second paragraph): "His script ended up becoming a literal restructuring of the Henry IV plays." Are these the words the source uses? In particular, did he say "ended up"? I have seen the film, and I know the Shakespeare plays well. There is a clear relationship between the film and the plays, but to talk of "a literal restructuring" seems wildly excessive. Please check again the words used.
  • Why did Van Sant think that the song was an appropriate basis for his film's title?
  • "Van Sant showed the script to an executive at 20th Century Fox who liked Shakespeare." What was this executive's reaction?
  • Most of this paragraph is well off the point; this section is entitled "Production" and the text should stick to that.

Perhaps you would let me know via my talkpage when you are ready for me to continue. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)