Wikipedia:Peer review/Batman Begins/archive2

Batman Begins
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a Good Article and I want to get it up to Featured status. The previous peer review can be found here. Any feedback and suggestions on improving it for FA will be very much appreciated
 * Previous peer review
 * 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 June 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 June 2008.

Thanks,  Greg  Jones   II  20:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but Batmobile, Batsuit, and Soundtrack are not in the lead, for example.
 * Article needs references in a few more places - there is at least one fact tag and the last eight entries in Cast are uncited. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow Superman (film series) is a FA and may offer some ideas. Other FA film articles are at Featured_articles
 * Could the Design and SPecial effects sections be combined? Effects is quite short now

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
 * Current ref 1 has no last access date and the publisher is run into the title, it really should be outside the title link.
 * What makes http://www.superherohype.com/ a reliable source?
 * Likewise http://www.indielondon.co.uk/index.php?
 * And http://www.batman-on-film.com/?
 * Generally about.com isn't considered a very reliable source.
 * What makes http://www.comingsoon.net/ a reliable source?
 * Likewise http://www.worldsfinestonline.com/main.php?
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 12:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added rs to those references and will get to them. Gary King ( talk ) 06:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Interviews/press releases are ALWAYS reliable. Do not delete cites from Superherohype, Indielondon and Batman on film. Alientraveller (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm. How do we know a site has accurately reported the interview? The site itself needs to have a reputation for fact checking and reliablity. Same for the other sources being used. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Yes, interviews are more reliable than most self-published websites, but we still need to make sure that the site publishing the interview is at least somewhat reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Superhero Hype! is a reliable source for interviews, set visits and so on, just like IGN and other similar sites. I can't really speak for IndieLondon, but there's no reason to believe a site would make up an entire interview. Alientraveller (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is it reliable though? Not everyone is into superheroes or comics. IGN is reliable because it is reasonably large media company, other media companies refer to it, and it has been established for a while. Same needs to be demonstrated for other sites. No, I'm not saying that the site necessarily made up the interview, but we need to know how long the site has been around, etc. For an interview, yes, we're not necessarily looking for the same standards we would look for if this was a BLP issue, but it still needs to be above Weekly World News standards. If a site is the website of a published journal/newspaper/magazine, that helps. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just linked the article. The WSJ and EW consider it reliable. It is not a blog, it is a film news website and part of the Crave Media network. Alientraveller (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There you go then, done for Superhero Hype. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Batman on Film, they've been interviewed here,, and I would consider that good enough if you cannot believe they actually interview people working on the comics and films. Alientraveller (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that fingers are broken across the nation today. Try here: http://www.timeout.com/film/news/488/ to see that the interview is fully covered by numerous media. That some editor chose one site covering it over another shouldn't impugn the source automatically, AGF when an apparently sourced item appears, and the content matches the source. Do some legwork, google a bit. '2008 Nolan Dorchester Batman' found me a number of websites covering the interview.ThuranX (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: The Wikipedia article should incorporate the critical analysis from Film Criticism, which I listed here. I think we should see about this analysis and others to "raise the bar" in terms of Featured Articles having extensive thematic detail (which is a little bit of a rarity). — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 22:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)