Wikipedia:Peer review/An Inconvenient Truth/archive1

An Inconvenient Truth
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it's really close to Good Article status and I want to get a good analysis to help push it over.--The lorax (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, The lorax (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments This important article looks a little disorganised at the moment. I think it needs some concentrated work if it is to recover its GA status, though I believe this is eminently do-able. Here are some general issues I noted after a first read-through:-


 * Lead: needs to be expanded so that it is a summary of the whole article. At present the lead says nothing about the content of the film, its making, or its critical reception.
 * In a subsequent edit, I feel I've addressed most of these concerns.--The lorax (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There has been no expansion of the lead. In this form it does not summarise the whole article, it merely gives introductory information. Everything of significance in the article should be touched on in the lead. Brianboulton (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Articles should primarily be written in prose form. While the odd bullet-pointed list might inform an article, in this case several sections entirely or largely consist of lists. Most of this material needs to be converted to prose.
 * Converted most of the bulleted sections to prose.--The lorax (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The first part of the Awards section should be prosified. The list could be made into a wikitable. However, you must use a consistent date format for these items.Brianboulton (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In the prose sections too much use is made of short and often single sentence paragraphs. The prose would read much better if this staccato feel was replaced with some natural flow.
 * This remains a problem in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Synopsis section is overdetailed. A synopsis is by definition a brief review. Here, we have too many examples; give us in a nutshell (couple of short paragraphs) what the film is about.
 * I was curious about this critique, since your previous observation was there wasn't enough detail? I tried fixing it up; I still think most of this should be kept.--The lorax (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, these are two quite separate matters. The lead as stated above must cover, albeit briefly, all the significant stuff in the article. A "synopsis" is by definition a brief summary. What you have written is more a commentary on the film than a synopsis of its content. If you want to keep this material, perhaps you should alter the section title to "Commentary"? Brianboulton (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Article structure: It would make chronological sense if the "Origins/Production" section was first in the article after the lead. I don't like this section title combination; the two things are quite different, and should have their own sections.
 * I renamed that section Background -- that seems to consolidate both topics.--The lorax (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Political response section. The responses from educational bodies/institutions are not strictly "political". Was there a basis for the selection of these three examples? Also, the Wall Street Journal item looks out of place in the article.
 * Dimmock case: Who was/is Dimmock, and why is he only mentioned once, in the final paragraph of the section bearing his name?
 * Added detail on Dimmock.--The lorax (talk) 05:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Criticism: It would be better to have criticisms of the film in an integrated "Reception" section in which both positive and negative reactions can be considered. The section looks out of place at the moment. By the way, what is a "believer scientist"?
 * Deleted criticism section and took what was the most notable review from that section and put it in Reviews.--The lorax (talk) 05:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sources: many of your sources lack access dates. Of those that have access dates some say "retrieved", others "accessed" - there should be consistency. Where newspapers are given as sources the date of the quote should be provided. Were there no books worth consulting?
 * Done.--The lorax (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Impact on popular culture section reads like a list of trivia. Such sections are widely disliked in Wikipedia; perhaps this one could be dropped.
 * Removed.--The lorax (talk) 05:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Prose: I am not making detailed comments on the prose at this stage, though I may do later if the above points are addressed. I did find some of the writing a bit dense and hard to follow, for example the section entitled "In the United States". As I said at the start, I think this is an importantv article and I hope that the necessary steps will be taken to bring it up to standard. Brianboulton (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good to see that a swift start has been made in addressing my concerns. I am not sure that I will be able to monitor all of the article's progress, but please leave a message on my talkpage when you think it's worth my taking another look. Brianboulton (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in getting back. I have added a few more comments. Brianboulton (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)