Wikipedia:Peer review/Dark Side of the Moon (film)/archive1

Dark Side of the Moon (film)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because its request for reassignment from start-class to c- or b-class was rejected for reasons that don't appear obvious to me (b1 Referencing & citations = no | b2 Coverage & accuracy = no | b3 Structure = no | b4 Grammar & style = yes | b5 Supporting materials = no), and without comments that might help to improve the article, so any comment or review is welcome. It is the first time I am writing a wikipedia article and following this rating process, so please feel free to tell me about wikipedia rules that I might have overlooked.

Thanks, Jlbruyelle (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Finetooth
Reading through the article, I can see why the reviewers said "no" to most of the criteria categories. Here's a brief set of suggestions:
 * To improve the referencing and citations, add inline citations for every claim in the article that involves quantities or quotations or that makes a claim that is disputed, doubtful, or controversial. For example, most of the claims in the "Giveaways" section lack citations to reliable sources. They are therefore in violation of WP:V since they cannot be verified by readers. Claims that are not verifiable should be removed from the article. Ditto for the "Elements" section and the "Characters" section and anything else lacking a reliable source, as defined by WP:RS.
 * Coverage could be improved by including a "Plot" or "Synopsis" section right underneath the lead. Readers who have not seen the film will want to know what happens in the film and how it proceeds from beginning to end.
 * For a variety of ideas about structure and other criteria, see Borat, a featured article about a documentary. Also, WP:Manual of Style/Film has many suggestions about style and structure.
 * Please note that nothing should appear in the lead that is not in the main text. The first paragraph of the existing lead seems OK, but the long quotation is not OK. If it has any place in the article, it would be somewhere below, but a paraphrase would be better than such a long quote from a catalog. Finetooth (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from CaesarsPalaceDude

 * The article reads well, avoids becoming too complicated, and is mostly devoid of grammatical errors and spelling mistakes. In the section "Reception" one small paragraph uses the verb "aired" four times. A trick many writers employ is to have a variety of similar words: "aired", "screened", or "was shown" etc.
 * As noted above, the long quotation from the catalogue is a significant issue, especially in the lead. It would be an excellent idea to remove it completely from the lead, as soon as possible (ie. don't wait until the end of the review process). It has no place in the lead. If you would like to quote from the catalogue, place it in the body of the article, and I would suggest only using one sentence.
 * Also noted above, the weakest area of the article is referencing and citations. I endorse the comments from Finetooth entirely. Here comes the hard bit. There are more problems with the citations, and they are equally serious. Currently, the article relies too heavily on primary sources, in particular the two interviews with William Karel. You would probably be best served to keep the citations you already have, and support them with citations to reliable secondary sources. I recommend you read WP:PRIMARY, if you haven't already done so.
 * Unfortunately, there is one very serious problem with one citation. Reference 6. contains a link to another Wikipedia article (Vernon A. Walters). When I did this in the first article I wrote, I was told that it "was a big no, no at Wikipedia". I am obliged to pass the same on to you. We are not allowed to use any other Wikipedia article (or section thereof) as a citation. See WP:CIRCULAR. I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to rip that citation out without hesitation (even if you did not put it in).
 * The lead doesn't mention anything about the Actual "witnesses" or the Fictitious witnesses, or any of the sections below them. Please remember that the lead is a summary of the whole article (doesn't mean that you have to cover every single item), and should briefly describe what is in the article. A short mention about the "Adolf-Grimme-Preis" would be good.
 * I was surprised to observe that there is no coverage of a critical review from a newspaper or magazine in the "Reception" section. This is the sort of content many readers would expect to find there.
 * In conclusion, the article has too many serious shortcomings to even recommend promoting it to C-class. On the other hand, it shows a huge amount of potential to become an article we can be very proud of, so don't give up. With some hard work, it can make it to B-class. There is always help at hand; you can ask questions at the Help Desk, or at the relevant WikiProject (and you will talk to some very nice people, too) CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FilmLover91
Is the long citation really that necessary? It looks very .... inept.

Maybe the give-aways section is not necessary too? The whole experience of this film centres on revealing it is a mockumentry, and the give-aways section, even if they are facts, seem to be moot assertions.

Many critics have reviewed this film, why not mention them and a brief line or two about what they said?

And doing a quick Youtube and deep web search brings up a lot of information on the making and development of this film, maybe you should add that in?

FilmLover91