Wikipedia:Peer review/Ain't Them Bodies Saints/archive1

Ain't Them Bodies Saints
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to know what the wiki community think of it, weather it should be a graded article or not.

I would to get your feedback on the style of writing, the tone, the structure, links and references. Please feel free to give any pointers you may have.

Thanks, FL91 17:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC) FilmLover91

Comments by Erik
You've certainly added a lot of good content for this topic! Here are some items: This is just a high-level review since I'll need to review the content and their references. Hope this helps. It's a learning curve to master! :) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead section is essentially a summary of the article body, so you do not need inline citations unless the material is controversial enough to warrant having them upfront.
 * In the "Plot" section, the "Summary" subsection is plagiarism since we are copying text from here without attribution. This should be removed right away. In addition, I don't think that subsection is needed because the film's premise is already being conveyed in the lead section.
 * The "Cast" section is certainly a novel approach! I think it is somewhat on the more detailed side, but I'm not too concerned. I do see extraneous white space between the bullet points and the "The film also features" sentence. Can that gap be removed?
 * In the "Production" section, I see inconsistency with using dates. These should be consistent but also limited. Specific dates do not matter for most events, so I think it is appropriate to stick to the month and the year. (For something like the start of filming, a specific date is fine.) There are also a lot of "it was announced" instances, and a more active voice should be used. For example, you can say "John Doe joined the cast" instead of "It was announced that John Doe joined the cast".
 * I would also caution against quoting the cast and crew expressing praise. It is conventional for them to do this, and we should not give that praise much weight. If the praise is specific, it can be included, but if it is something like, "I joined the film because I loved the screenplay," it's weak and not very valuable from an encyclopedic perspective.
 * The quotation marks need to be fixed throughout the article. See MOS:QUOTEMARKS for guidance. Make sure commas are properly inserted and placed too.
 * In the "Critical reception" section, we should be careful not to synthesize reviews. For example, we can't say "Many critics were lukewarm in their praise" and base that on only three reviews in that paragraph. If you need to group reviews together, identify elements that both reviews mention so you can transition between them.
 * In the "Awards" section, each award should have an inline citation. Try to find a Good Article about a film that has done this and copy their formatting. The text size looks a little small here. I also do not think we need the "Date of ceremony" column.
 * For references, they are being presented inconsistently. Each reference should identify the author whenever possible, identify and link to the the work that publishes it, and write out the dates in a consistent manner. I see that IMDb is being referenced here, but it is not considered a reliable source. Other sources should be found for the same information and replace IMDb.
 * In the lead section, you mention that the film was in the top ten lists of "many" publications. Reviewing Metacritic, it is eight publications, which is not as many as the top 30 films that the website highlights. I would change that wording, and I also suggest listing the eight publications in the article body somewhere. This has been done in some Good Articles, and you can copy that approach.
 * Regarding the non-free image in the article body, I do not find that it has a place here. We have to use non-free images on Wikipedia in a very specific manner. We include film posters in infoboxes to be identifying images, but any non-free image in addition to that has to be well-warranted. See Changeling (film) and American Beauty (1999 film) as an example of two articles that use screenshots well. There needs to be specific critical commentary about a shot, whether its framing, lighting, or content (e.g., production design) for which a free image does not exist.

Thanks Erik, knew i could count on you, exactly what i wanted! FilmLover91