Wikipedia:Peer review/Richard III (1955 film)/archive2

Richard III (1955 film)[edit]

Already had one peer review, and a Failed FAC. I need more ideas, however, there is a limited amount of information on the subject. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)}

Anybody? ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 23:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, I wanna get this to FA. I just need more ideas! ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 22:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.

As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]

Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
Thanks, Andy _t 23:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how does it look now. It's got a bit more depth, due to the new plot summary. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 04:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts at a glance: smaller sections and subsections should be merged. The sub-sectioning of "Produciton" is really uneven. Prosify the "Cast" and "Awards" sections. Logically, shouldn't "Awards" come before "Influence?" Block-quotes are unnecessary and disruptive to they eye, even in scanning the page. The long introductory quote in the "Plot summary" has got to go, or be significantly condensed.--Monocrat 22:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]