User:Hallep620/sandbox

Article Evaluation
The Wikipedia page on Al Pacino’s 1996 film, Looking for Richard is surprisingly sparse considering the notability of the subject matter, and the major celebrity backing of people like Al Pacino, Alec Baldwin, and Winona Ryder (just to name a few). Although the film itself was not particularly famous or well-known at the time, it is surprising how little went into creating this page. Most films have some type of plot summary or synopsis, as well as what went into the film’s production, more about its critical reception, and a great deal of background regarding the subject matter. Instead, this page only has three sentences of background, five sentences of description, one sentence on the film’s reception, and a categorical listing of the cast.

Were I to edit the Wikipedia page on Looking for Richard, I would add more detail to the existing sections, and then create some new sections of my own. For example, I would add an entire section titled “Synopsis,” where I would briefly and chronologically describe all the important moments in the film, and integrate cited quotes from the film when necessary. Most Wikipedia pages on films have this section, as it provides a detailed summation of the work itself. After this section, I would add a section entirely devoted to Richard III, and how Pacino integrated this play into his own film. In this section I would also talk about other adaptations of Richard III, and how the part-adaptation, part-documentary style of Looking for Richard compares to the more faithful depictions.

Interestingly, I think the lack of a “Production” section is the most problematic, as this film was an incredibly long and laborious three-year process, which is strongly tethered to the success of the film overall. The entire point of this documentary is to detail the Pacino’s process in creating an accurate adaptation of Richard III. Therefore, I believe this section could have a subcategory of “Looking for Richard Production” which describes the process behind making the play itself, as opposed to the film.

Finally, I believe the “Reception” section could be greatly improved upon, as audience reaction is such a crucial part of Richard III, that it feels wrong to have so little written about the film documenting it. There have been published, peer-reviewed articles that critique this film, and I think citing a few of those would greatly improve the Wikipedia page as a whole.

Individual Implementation Plan
My group's job in the Wikipedia assignment is to work on Formatting, Sources, References and Notes. Together, as stated in our Team Proposal, we will rework the layout of the citations on the Cymbeline Wikipedia page, in order to make it more user-friendly and informative. Most of the work we do cannot be specifically written in our sandboxes, as it mostly involves technical changes, and not content changes. However, in terms of my personal role, I have already made a few edits to the Wikipedia page. For example, I have added a "Sources" section which is where Greg will add all of the properly formatted citations for the page. I have also made an adjustment to the References section by taking the first Reference: "The reign of Cunobeline is dated from c. AD 10–40, while the reign of Augustus (mentioned five times in the play) ended in AD 14" and changing it to a Note. I made this change because unlike the other References / Citations, this was not accurately categorized, since it is a historical Note that provides additional information, and not information strictly about Cymbeline. Reference #4 is also like this, as it includes a block quote, so that will be the next change I make. These types of changes will be my primary concern for the rest of the project, which will mostly take place after everyone else has created their references for their individual sections.