Wikipedia:Peer review/Sherlock Holmes Baffled/archive1

Sherlock Holmes Baffled

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This might seem a slightly odd article to nominate for peer review, given its brevity. However, I've been working on the article for a few days, and in many ways think I've probably said all that can realistically be said about a 30-second silent film. Considering that this is such an accidentally significant film, I thought it might be fun to see if there was a possibility of it being a good, or even featured article at some point - the film will be 110 on April 26th!

Thanks, Bob talk 23:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Short and interesting. Mainly housekeeping points (I have also done a lttle copyediting while reading through):

• In the lead you refer to Holmes's appearance as "in barely recognisable form." This suggests heavy disguise, or mutilation, or something fantastical. I think all that is meant is that he doesn't appear in his trademark deerstalker hat and tweed coat. It may be best to modify the wording here.
• The words "by extension" seem to be unnecessary
• "...to steal a stack of stolen goods..." can't be right. Delete "stolen"?
• I think "Action" might be a better section title than "Plot", since the action described scarecely amounts to a "plot".
• Would "lighting a cigar" be more accurate then "smoking a cigar"?
• What is the purpose of citation [4] at the end of the first paragraph of the "Plot" section? In what way does this site support the text?
• Clumsily worded: "The identity of the first film Holmes and his assailant are not recorded". Do you mean: "The identitiy of the first screen Holmes, and that of his assailant, are not recorded"?
• What/who does "its" refer to in "produced at its rooftop studio"?
• "Writing on its discovery in 1968..." - again, "its" needs to be defined.
• "Estimates suggest that..." → "It has been estimated that..."
• "...has gone on to be..." → "has become"
• Online references all require, minimally, title, publisher, url and last access date. At present several are lacking one or more of these.
• Reference [9] is a dead link
• Licencing details for the Mutoscope advert are defective, as noted on the image page. The link to source is dead.
• Both images should have alt text

I hope these points are helpful. If you wish to raise any issue with me, please do so via my talkpage as I am not watching peer reviews at present. Brianboulton (talk)