Wikipedia:Peer review/Richard III (1955 film)/archive1
Richard III (1955 film)[edit]
I've hand reared this article from a stub, and I know it's a hell of a long way from the standard that it needs, but I just need some ideas as to what I should do next. Eventually, I want to get it to feature article shape, but obviously that's a long way away. .... 09:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, I got you started with some tweaking of the lede sentence. You might wish to compare with other film FACs like Halloween (film) or Casablanca (film) or Triumph of the Will for some ideas. Oh, and good start btw. Kaisershatner 12:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- There are far too many images, I'd suggest getting rid of the cast table as well. Look at other articles that are FA, such as Casablanca (film) for ways to write about the cast - thats just one way - there are numerous ways to go about it. Its probably not the best idea to have a blank plot with a link to the play's plot either. There needs to be a some sort of plot. Also, could you write a paragraph comparing it to the play? Also, use a different referencing system, the current one looks like an old system, also, IMDB trivia is not really a great source as it is contributed by fans etc. In addition, triva is kind of frowned upon at the FAC, integrate the points into paragraphs someone relevent - as opposed to dot points. The reception section could be expanded - some critical views could be nice. Avoid shortish paragraphs. Reference POV things like "Oliver is considered the best portrayer..or whatever." etc. No need to have four posters/covers. Don't mennion things like Criteron remastered it in the lead (in addition, make sure all wikilinks are working, that one goes to a disambiguation). Anyway, nice work, and good luck. Cvene64 13:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I think I'll keep the cast table for the time being, I think that that should be adopted by other film articles, as it is a highly valuable and useul way of identifying cast members..... 06:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, it looks great, but your not really allowed to have more than, say, 3 or so screenshots. Thats the problem. Cvene64 08:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, let's be honest, those aren't really screenshots, they're more portraits, or thumbnails. Anyway, now I've improved the "Behind the Scenes" section. .... 08:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, it looks great, but your not really allowed to have more than, say, 3 or so screenshots. Thats the problem. Cvene64 08:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I think I'll keep the cast table for the time being, I think that that should be adopted by other film articles, as it is a highly valuable and useul way of identifying cast members..... 06:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah but..theyre copyright material, one way or another, you cant use that many... Cvene64 18:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- I do believe this film is in the public domain....61.69.12.14 22:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I've re-vamped the Cast section, modeled on the style shown on Casablanca (film).... 06:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- I do believe this film is in the public domain....61.69.12.14 22:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- There are far too many images, I'd suggest getting rid of the cast table as well. Look at other articles that are FA, such as Casablanca (film) for ways to write about the cast - thats just one way - there are numerous ways to go about it. Its probably not the best idea to have a blank plot with a link to the play's plot either. There needs to be a some sort of plot. Also, could you write a paragraph comparing it to the play? Also, use a different referencing system, the current one looks like an old system, also, IMDB trivia is not really a great source as it is contributed by fans etc. In addition, triva is kind of frowned upon at the FAC, integrate the points into paragraphs someone relevent - as opposed to dot points. The reception section could be expanded - some critical views could be nice. Avoid shortish paragraphs. Reference POV things like "Oliver is considered the best portrayer..or whatever." etc. No need to have four posters/covers. Don't mennion things like Criteron remastered it in the lead (in addition, make sure all wikilinks are working, that one goes to a disambiguation). Anyway, nice work, and good luck. Cvene64 13:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)