Wikipedia:Peer review/Titanic (1997 film)/archive1

Titanic (1997 film)[edit]

This would make a lovely featured article. What should be done to achieve this? Never Mystic 00:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Production needs to be expanded, this should not be difficult there are several books and DVD features that describe the creation of this film. Synopsis needs to be cut down greatly, it is way too detailed. A Promise Kept section is very unencyclopedic, its reads somehwat like an essay. There can be a section on themes, but interpretations of the film's themes need to be referenced from reliable sources. Cast section is too large and should be cut down to main cast. (The Strauss' didn't even have speaking roles in the film) Criticism needs to be rewritten, it reads as if the reviewers opinions were tacked on randomly. Deleted scenes and parodies lists need to be removed, they are completely unencyclopedic and irrelevent. The fact some scenes in the film have been parodied should be explained in the Response section. Trivia either needs to be removed or integrated into the relevant sections. The whole article needs to be referenced, including inline citations. Medvedenko 01:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what Medvedenko has said but would also add that every link and every citation needs to be current and any internal links need to have relevent articles or stubs. Edward Lalone 21:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to incorporate your suggestions ASAP. I'm just curious if either of you are aware of print sources for the film? I guess the DVD would be useful for non-online citations. Never Mystic 23:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an offical book about the making of Titanic which I think is named James Cameron's Titanic, that includes information about thr film's production. While looking for the name of the previous book I found a book called Titanic: Anatomy of a Blockbuster which I imagine could be very useful because it was written several years after Titanic was released. Also check out books about movies and the real Titanic written after 1997 which may include information about the movie. Hope this helps. Medvedenko 01:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three reviews that are available online as well as off-line and would be good secondary sources for this article on the Titanic. They would also serve as good jumping off points as you look for more sources to add detail to the article.

Review: Titanic - Journal of American History
Review: A Cultural History of the Titanic Disaster - Journal of American History
Tourism and Titanomania - Critical Inquiry

I would use these sources as good reference works or in other references even if you do not think they should be included in the article. Edward Lalone 16:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked the links yet, but I'll be sure to immediately after posting this. Thanks for the suggestions. Never Mystic 21:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The online references won't permit me access. Looks like the print-based would be most reasonable, then. Never Mystic 00:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about references for the box office information? Also quite a bit of red links in Cast and Awards. Mentioned in the article itself, but some organization on Parodies is needed. —Jared Hunt September 9, 2006, 03:34 (UTC)

Yes, the parodies section is disastrous, requires trimming, and needs extensive referencing. It will be a job — practically — but I hope to get it done. Never Mystic 23:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This movie was freaking awesome. Some general tips:

-Needs a lot more in-line citations; three just isn't enough for an article this size.
-Every single section in the article has to be written in summary style. You can't have lists. FAC reviewers will gnaw on that point for eternity. For example, in the Cast section, instead of just listing out the cast, why not talk about how and why some of the more prominent actors were selected? That would make for a much more interesting read.
-Destroy the Trivia section! No more needs to be said on that.
-Some sections like Soundtrack, Awards, and DVD have to be expanded. They are too short right now.

Overall, I think this needs significant work before it reaches FA status.UberCryxic 19:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your points are relevant. You should have seen the trivia section in this edit, which I trimmed down to the significant points and hope to sort accordingly when I find proper sources. Thanks, nonetheless! Never Mystic (t c) 02:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the parodies section is hideous. I'm going to remove it now. The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a small bit of tidying, and added a ref. 'Critical reaction' should also include what was been written academically. The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good suggestion. Never Mystic (t c) 20:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]