Wikipedia:Peer review/35 mm film/archive1

35 mm film
This is the first collaboration of WikiProject Filmmaking. We're about to move on to the next one, so it would be nice to get some other eyes on this one before sending along to FAC. I'll be available to respond and rewrite in the evenings; other project members may also be available for comment. Many thanks in advance for all critiques offered! Girolamo Savonarola 16:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Generally a well-written interesting article. A few comments:
 * Amateur formats - doesn't seem directly related to 35mm especially the 8mm reference
 * How film works - this section is a bit too detailed: there is section about static build-up for example. Since there is a whole article on the subject, I would think this section would benefit from some trimming.
 * References, although good are spotty. There are heavily referenced statements mixed with sections without references.
 * Normal WP:MOS checking needs to be carried out; Non breaking space between measurements,not repeating the title in the headings (so 'History' rather than 'History of 35mm film') etc.
 * Apart from that I think it is a winner. Yomangani 16:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! Many thanks again, and please keep the critique coming! Girolamo Savonarola 22:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I've tried to rewrite the amateur section to mainly highlight the divergence of the amateurs from 35mm usage.
 * 2) I haven't gotten around to the "how film works" section, but it should be noted that photographic film doesn't really discuss the matter to as much depth, nor does any other article I am aware of. It may perhaps be more appropriate for expansion in another article. However, some components of motion picture film are not found in still films, including things like remjet backing. Static is also more of a problem for cine film since it is moving at a very fast speed, unlike stills film stock. I'll take a look and see what can be managed, but maybe at least a basic description of the process along with the key differences from still film is a better idea?
 * 3) As far as references go, I think I probably see what you're talking about, but just so that I know precisely: which sections?
 * 4) Non-breaking spaces implemented; heading corrected.
 * 5) I've also looked over the automated comments and tried to address most of the suggestions.


 * 1) That improved it, it now seems to have some relation to the topic
 * 2) It might be an idea to have it in its own article or as a section in photographic film - otherwise I'll guess you'll be repeating it in any 16mm and 8mm articles as well
 * 3) Just some examples (there are a few trailing sentences in other sections apart from these):
 * 1.37:1 (1.33:1) "Academy" - first sentence cited only
 * Widescreen - first half cited, second half not
 * Super 35 - no citations in the second half
 * 3-Perf, VistaVision and 35 mm still photography - no citations
 * New innovations in sound - no citations Yomangani 23:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 01:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)