Wikipedia:Peer review/American Graffiti/archive1

===American Graffiti===


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because of the failed Feature Article Nomination. The other editors stated that the prose was fairly bad and that I had an egotistical attitude towards other editors. Any suggestions would be nice.

Thanks, Wildroot (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/American Graffiti/archive1.

Ruhrfisch comments: This is a great movie and while there is a lot of information in the article, I agree that the prose needs to be polished. Here are my suggestions for improvement: Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A model article is always useful for ideas, style, structure, etc. There are a large number of film FAs at Featured_articles that may be suitable models.
 * I would also treat the FAC as a very detailed peer review. Wikipedia operates on consensus, so it really matters what other editors think of the article. I read the FAC and agree with their sugestions - the article needs a copyedit for grammar and to tighten up the article. I would address every point raised, make sure that there are not other similar points to be addressed in other parts of the article (i.e. treat the examples as just that, not a complete list), and then ask the FAC editors to look at the article again and see if their concerns have been addressed.
 * The WP:LOCE can do copyedits or you can ask at WP:PRV in the copyedits section.
 * I would also make sure the article is properly referenced - for example any direct quotation should be cited, but in the lead ... Lucas was developing an "untitled science fiction space opera" ... and ... American Graffiti was deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" by the United States Library of Congress ... need citations - see WP:LEAD
 * In the plot and when describing the film, make sure to write from an out of universe perspective - see WP:IN-U
 * The long list of alternative titles for the film will never make it through FAC - what is its purpose? I often suggest list-y material be spun off into a separate article, but I think if this were it would be speedy deleted.

I fixed the long list of title in the Production section. I'm almost done adding citations in the lead section but I will finish that when I'm not busy. Is it really necessary to have citations in the lead? The lead is just an intro to what the audience/reader is about to hear. Anyway, peace. &mdash;Wildroot (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  02:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You do not need to cite everything in the Lead. I admit a bias to not cluttering the Lead with ref numbers and, instead, depend on the citations later in the article (assuming the Lead is written properly and does not include copy unsupported by the article body). WP:LEAD permits this. The only exception to this are refs for the "untitled science fiction space opera" and LOC quotes (direct quotes should always have a ref). I'll look this over some more. At first blush, it looks pretty good.

JimDunning comments: After reading through this, I agree with Ruhrfisch that a thorough copy-edit is the first order of business and that the FAC review really can act as the peer review. No offense to the contributing editors, but there are a number of areas where sentence and paragraph structure, grammar (e.g. parallelism (major issues), present participle usage, passive voice, split infinitives, incorrect or misplaced punctuation, etc.), and clarity can be improved. Regarding clarity, for example, I found the sentence, "The film was originally to be funded by United Artists, but after creative differences Lucas decided to work with Universal Studios..." in the Lead to be vague (creative differences between who?). However, after checking out the supporting detail in the Development section, I can guess that the creative differences were between Lucas and a screenwriter he hired with funds supplied by UA, but there is no satisfactory explanation as to why Lucas moved to Universal. This needs to be fleshed out further not only to support the statement in the Lead (which led me to believe the differences were with UA), but to answer questions that will inevitably occur to readers of the Development copy. The article is also peppered with awkward sentences like, "Lucas held firm, his was a story about West Coast teenagers in the early 1960s." I understand the intent and, yes, a simple colon would fix this, but there are numerous sentences like this ((1) "After paying Walter, Lucas had exhausted his development fund, and he had to now write the script himself." just needs to have the word "now" and a comma removed; (2) "THX 1138 was selected at the Cannes Film Festival in May 1971, where Lucas met David Picker, president of United Artists, and intrigued with both American Graffiti and Lucas's untitled science fiction film, giving Lucas $10,000 to develop a script." – How many subjects and predicates do we have going here? Who's doing what to whom?).

I worry this is a situation where sponsoring editors are more focused on achieving the FA (or GA) rather than growing an excellent, informative, and interesting article. The article goes GA at the end of February and is up for FAC barely a month later? What's the rush? I'm not slamming Wildroot: it's natural to shoot for goals like this, but patience and collaborative effort are required. I look at the article's Talk page and marvel at the paucity of discussion. Similarly, the article's revision history is scarce on collaboration (not to mention edit summaries, whose use fosters collaboration). I recommend that this peer review be put on hold or, better yet, ended. As suggested, Wildroot should invite WP:LOCE to help copy edit with fresh eyes. Let the article percolate a bit as a GA and it will evolve into a better work. I'm glad to assist with the copy-edit.

And where is the Music section? When I think back to the August 1973 night when I saw this film, the strongest memory I have is of the soundtrack. There's no way an article on American Graffiti could go to FA without a solid treatment of the music. Afterall, it even says, "Lucas wrote every scene with a specific musical backdrop in mind." Difficult access to relevant sources is no excuse: there has to be a rich body of analysis and criticism out there (think "film school doctoral dissertations"). And that's where collaboration is important; one editor working solo cannot produce the FA article this film deserves. Jim Dunning | talk  03:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

OMG! I forgot about "Themes"! This article needs to include those as well. Jim Dunning | talk  04:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)