Wikipedia:Peer review/Dredd/archive1

Dredd
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… I think it's a solid article about a great but sadly underperforming film, and I would like to take it to FA. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

SGGH

Hi DWB. I've put my thoughts in the same order as the sections in the article, which hopefully make them more useful.

Lead
 * The lead is adequate, covering a nice selection of the various topics, from setting, cast, origin, reception and financial reward.
 * The infobox contains the appropriate fields, and image which appears to be a legitimate use of a fair use image.
 * One minor thought: "Critics were generally positive about the film's visual effects, casting and action, while criticism focused on a perceived lack of the satirical elements that are found in the source comic and on excessive violence. Despite the positive critical response" these two sentences, are they slightly contradictory?

Plot
 * Plot sections can be notoriously tricky, trying to avoid overly "in-universe" tone, but still remembering that the plot section must be the most "in-universe" section of the article.
 * You may go into too much depth here. Perhaps summarise some of the plot. We don't need a blow by blow account.
 * Try perhaps not to go into overly details descriptions of the battle scenes also
 * There is a general setting sentence about Mega City One, then a specific sentence about the drug, then a general one about the Judges and law-enforcement. Perhaps put the sentence introducing the judge first? That way we go from describing broad setting then to smaller specific content.
 * Perhaps tie down the plot with the chronology of the film? Perhaps with "the film opens with" and similar? That's just a stylistic consideration and I doubt would impact a GAC/FAC.
 * Some flow and prose could be touched up to be more pleasant a read, for a real quality FA. Same with some of the commas.

Cast


 * Good mix of character background and actor background to the role.
 * The image of Olivia is confirmed under CC licence.
 * We don't need to wikilink prejudice
 * Not sure if the actor/character name then colon could be turned into prose that runs together into the character description? This applies to many of the entries.
 * "A rookie Judge and genetic mutant with powerful psychic abilities. Anderson can sense the thoughts and emotions of others" - is that supposed to be a comma perhaps?

Production


 * Is there more that could be added to expand upon reactions to the news of the film with reference to the Stalone movie?
 * We jump around in the chronology here, going from development in 2008 to writing in 2006. Is there a way to streamline the chronology?
 * In the design section, can we include a free image of the original Dredd artwork to show comparison?
 * Is there more on the development of the weapon? That sounds intriguing.
 * The caption of the image in 'filming' has no citation.
 * "it was the first time Mantle worked with 3D" -> "it was the first time Mantle [had] worked with 3D" perhaps?

Music
 * No issues.

Marketing
 * Are the "best..." awards to be in italics? I'm not sure if there is some MOS on that somewhere - perhaps check with film articles that are already FA?

Release


 * Some of the reviews are positive, some average (like Rotten tomatoes and then metacritic) but they are all mixed up. Perhaps better grouping from good to fair into negative? "Many US newspaper critics were less taken with the film" suggests that you are grouping them by reaction, but in earlier parts of the section they are chronologically grouped based on where the film was in release, etc.
 * Grouping by specific areas of praise/criticism once you have described some general positive and negative reviews is a good thing. I would try a structure close to:
 * Good general reviers
 * middling reviews
 * bad reviews
 * X and Y were particularly derided
 * ... however reviewers universally praised Z

Sequel General
 * No issues


 * one final copy edit, check comma and semi-colon use.
 * Good refs, if you are going to have a "documents" sub-heading, perhaps but the notes under a "notes" subheading? Otherwise having documents as the only sub-heading under the refs seems a little unbalanced.
 * Categories seem good.

I hope that helps? No doubt others will give you their thoughts. S.G.(GH) ping! 20:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)