Wikipedia:Peer review/Days of Heaven/archive1

Days of Heaven

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some creative, constructive feedback from Wikipedia's peers and distinguished editors to improve this articles quality and scope in hope of perhaps later nominating it as a Good Article. So far, I have done a little bit of working in cleaning up references and citations, adding visual enhancement and fixing up the introductory paragraphs.

Thanks, Ashton 29 (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd be interested in reviewing this article, but I see that the user who listed it (Ashton 29) has not been active in 10 days. Are you available to address comments? --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Right I had a response from Ashton on my talk page, so here is my review. This is probably the most beautiful film ever made, and one of my favourites of all time. Thanks for your work on the article. I made a couple of small changes as I read through it.

Specific comments

• I think the difficulty/length of the production needs to be mentioned in the lead. Also, maybe Malick's Cannes win?
• The $3million budget is already sourced in the text, so we don't need a ref in the lead.
• "only the cinematography and imagery" Pick one of these words, they mean pretty much the same thing so having both is redundant.
• "particularly noted for the beauty of the photography and cinematography." And again. I personally would say use imagery for the first sentence, then cinematography for the second.
• Perhaps mention in the plot that the film is narrated by Linda?
• I think it would make far more sense to swap the positions of the photograph and the quote box, under "Principal photography". They would be closer to when those topics are discussed in the text.
• I think it needs to be made a bit clearer why they chose to use the lighting/imagery they did.
• "While the photography yielded exquisite results," > POV. Needs to be changed.

*I'm sure I've read before that Malick added the voice-over narration as an afterthought? Shouldn't that be mentioned? Unless I'm getting confused with Badlands... The information about the added narration by Manz is in there.

• The information we have in the "Reception" section right now isn't enough to justify the comments in the lead that it received "initially unfavourable critical reviews" but "has since become one of the most acclaimed films of all time". The section needs to be fleshed out with more examples.
• Since this is an American film, I think it should be written in American English. But we have "unfavourable", and maybe some others. Check for consistency.

Sentences needing a reference *"Malick had tried and failed to get Dustin Hoffman or Al Pacino to star in the film."

• "The actors and crew reportedly viewed Malick as cold and distant."

*The quote in the quote box is unsourced.

General comments, re GA criteria

• Prose: I think the prose is fine for GA standards, which just asks that it is "clear and concise".
• Verifiability: It is well referenced. I don't like, though, that specific page numbers aren't given for the Almendros book. That makes it extremely difficult to verify the sentences it is supporting. Someone would have to flick through the whole book!
• Neutrality: We need to remove the one instance of POV, but other than that there is no original research and the page is written in a neutral, unbiased tone.
• Broadness: I don't think the article covers all "the main aspects of the topic". We need some mention of the script writing process, Morricone's score, and - importantly - some discussion of themes. There is lots of interesting stuff that critics have said about this film, there needs to be a section on this. Looking at the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(film), it also seems desirable to have a "Home media" section. Days of Heaven has received a Criterion release, which is notable.
• Images: I think the two non-free ones used right now are entirely justified. In fact, I think it would be useful to have one more - a shot illustrating the discussion of "magic hour". It's an important aspect of the film, it should really be visible in the article.

So, the article is too slight for GA right now, and would strongly benefit from some content expansion. But it is definitely in good shape and on the right track. I hope you're up for further developing the article? It would be great to have information of the things I've mentioned. If you'd like me to look at it again once you've done this, I'd be happy to. Good luck! --Lobo (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a beautiful film and I'm happy to edit it. It's one of my favorites also. I hope to expand it gradually, I have crossed out what I have done so far to the article in regards to your edits, to keep track. I'm not going to expand the reaction just yet, because I believe that needs the most work as it is fairly small in size/scope at the moment. I will address all these things over time, and let you know when I want you to have another look through it. Thank you! Ashton 29 (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)