Wikipedia:Peer review/Duck Soup/archive1

Duck Soup
I've listed this article for peer review because, even though I and other editors have contributed much information and references, I'm certain that there are other aspects of this classic film that have yet to be covered. I'd like to get feedback from other users, so that such feedback can be applied in updating the article.

Thanks,

— Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs) 21:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Roger Davies
I'm sorry to be so slow responding to your message but I don't have a huge amount of time at the moment. Here are a few observations:


 * Reception
 * 1) Needs clarifying: One possible reason for the film's reception is that... - you don't actually say what the reception was, though you do imply that it did badly.
 * 2) Why did it do well at the box office but badly with the critics?
 * 3) How does it compare box-office-wise in dollars with Animal Crackers, Monkey Business, Horse Feathers, A Night at the Opera and A Day at the Races? A nice simple table showing comparative grosses would be good.
 * 4) Why not include the punchline in the Groucho anecdote about Casablanca and Warner Bros? It's short and funny.


 * Famous scenes
 * 1) Reads more like fond memories than encyclopedic content. (Understandable :)
 * 2) Some external scholarship for selection of the scenes to feature would be good, ie an external rationale.
 * 3) Perhaps one sub-section per key/famous scene, with a brief description of the scene, some critical input, and images?


 * References in popular culture
 * 1) The Woody Allen reference is rather thrown away and could do with expansion.
 * 2) Consider renaming to something encyclopedic like Works referencing Duck Soup
 * 3) The film must have influenced far more than you suggest. More research?
 * 4) On a related point, which would make a good subsection, what material influenced or inspired Duck Soup? (The Laurel & Hardy connection is thrown away in the intro. It needs expanding.)


 * Footnotes and references
 * 1) Bit of a mess. Clearest in my experience is to list in full every source referenced in the references section. Then in the footnotes, use very brief cross-reference. See Hamlet for examples. Something like:
 * Dirks, Tim. Duck Soup Review Filmsite.org - Retrieved: 30 December 2007.
 * Ebert, Roger. 2000. Duck Soup Review, July 9, 2000 rogerebert.com - Retrieved: 30 December 2007.
 * Corresponding footnotes and
 * 1) Any printed sources you can look to? Adds gravitas and, more importantly, depth (IME, webcomment tends to more superficial than printed stuff.)


 * Overall
 * 1) Rather engagingly written but short sentences/paragraphs make it rather choppy/stubby in places.
 * 2) A world politics overview section would be interesting. Economic horrors wirth worldwide depression. Emergence of Fascists in Italy, Nazis in Germany.
 * 3) Have you considered a compare and contrast section, to very similar films? The Great Dictator springs to mind but there are bound to be others. What was the cinema landscape generally of the time?

I've concentrated on broad stroke stuff rather than nitty-gritty. This has great potential for a featured article. All the best, and happy New Year, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 14:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Cinemaniac replies: Thanks for the feedback. I'll do my best to assess your suggestions and apply them to the article in the near future.  Once that's done and the article looks satisfactory, I'll contact you and see if we can get it nominated for good article status.  It'd be nice to have a Marx Brothers-related article as a FA, too. Much obliged, and Happy New Year to you!  — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 19:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure :) Good luck, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 21:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Collectonian
Hmmm...my response will probably not be what you want to hear, but as you are seeking to improve it I hope you'll take my feedback as an attempt to help you with that goal.


 * The very first thing I noticed is that the article is not complying well with the Film MOS. It is missing some key sections (most notably cast/characters and production details). Famous scenes should be subsections of the plot and a source is needed for the declaration that those selected scenes are famous.
 * Musical numbers should either be moved into the plot, or reworked as a start to a more detailed production details with the lists converted to prose if possible; that could also include the current ride remark in the intro about the earlier titles of the film
 * Refences in popular culture is a trivia section and unnecessary, as is the side statement: "(Groucho would later use a similar idea in his letters to Warner Brothers defending the title of A Night in Casablanca)" in the reception section.
 * I'm not super familiar with these films, so I can't tell for sure if the plot summary is including the ending, but if not it needs to.
 * The intro needs rewriting to better fit the lead section guidelines and the Film MOS suggestions. Some of what's there is production note stuff that belongs further in the article, and several key basic points are missing (director, producer, original release, etc).
 * The disambig link should be at the top of the page, not buried in the See Also section
 * I'd ax the two final links in the ELs, they are fan sites that add nothing of encyclopedic value to the article
 * Some of the references need to be redone using the cite web or cite news or similar template rather than just a plain link; more references are also needed. For example, if Herman J. Mankiewicz was uncredited as the producer, a source is needed showing he was the producer.  The entire first part of the music section is also unsourced, though it makes some important claims that need verifiable, reliable sources to back them up. Other similar key points are missing sources.
 * It's also missing the video and DVD release info. It was released to VHS in 1992, and has had several DVD released.  There is also a CD soundtrack created by Soundtrack Factory.
 * Finally, may want to work on the tone. Some parts read more like a loving tribute from a fan than a neutral, encyclopedic article :)

I hope that helps some Collectonian (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Cinemaniac replies: Thanks for the critique. I'll be correcting a lot of these problems in the near future.  By the way, concerning the repeated note about "some parts read more like a loving tribute from a fan than a neutral, encyclopedic article"— honestly, I'm a big fan of the Marx Brothers, and I have no doubt that the majority of the others that edited that page are, too, but hopefully that won't stop the improvement of the article.  Thanks again for your comments. and Happy New Year! — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 04:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No prob and good luck. Trust me, I struggle sometimes with being neutral while working on articles of favorites too.  That's one reason I like the PR as it lets more neutral eyes help you find spot times were the inner fan took over the keyboard ;-) Collectonian (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Erik
Happy New Year to you, too! I haven't much time on Wikipedia today, what with the Bowl games and all, so here's a couple of brief thoughts: If you have any questions at all, feel free to ask! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Duck Soup is an old film, so I think that for the article to significantly improve, you would need to track down offline resources. I have a feeling that this film has likely been covered at length in books and newspaper articles between its release and today, so you may want to try out keywords for Duck Soup in Google Book Search, Google News Archive Search, and Google Scholar Search.  If you have a university account, you can learn to search the keywords in newspaper articles locked in subscription-only databases.  The one I've used frequently is Access World News -- hopefully, it's available to you!  And implementing templates is also a good idea.  Though I'm biased, I'd suggest Fight Club (film) was an example to follow.  You'll see a healthy mix of offline and online resources for a 1999 film.  For this one, I think that there'd likely be a slant toward offline resources.  If you have questions about researching, let me know, and I can help out!  I've provided subpages to some editors with some headlines.


 * Cinemaniac replies: Thanks for your comments! I'll go ahead and start researching more for the film in order to find more offline references, so that a balance between offline and online citations can be achieved.  In that regard, however, I may need your experience to help guide me through it.  Much obliged. :) — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 22:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments by ColdFusion650
First up, some props. The plot is not too long. Usually this is my main complaint on film articles. People make the plot section like a transcript. This one is good. However, the famous scenes section seems bloated. The first paragraph is fine, as it uses citations and proves that it is indeed famous by using the also famous I Love Lucy scene. The second through fifth paragraphs of that section don't really establish why they are famous. They may be great and funny, but why are they famous? This section really needs citations to establish famousness.

I saw in the reception section that several refs do not use citation templates. They attempt to duplicate the output, but they should really use a template.

There are a lot of uncited statements that I have tagged with.

I also saw that several places use parenthesis. In some of them, the parenthesis could simply be removed. My general criteria for parenthesis is this: Are the parenthesis even necessary? If they are necessary to put in a statement, does the statement really belong there or is it just stuck in?

You should try to convert the lists in Music into prose.

The "Works Referencing Duck Soup" section may be combined with famous scenes. Other works referencing the scene establishes that the scene is famous and may take care of the problems I cited in my first paragraph. On a quick read through, that's all I see. ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The lists of songs should not be converted to prose, i.e. in a long paragraph instead of a list. That will make it much more tedious to try to read. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Original Songs" section, apart from the first bullet, is just a list of names. It won't be that long. ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Lists are much easier to read when presented as lists. Put the interests of the reader first. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To avoid appearing too negative, I should point out that most of your changes and suggestions are good. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You assume I'm doing something other than acting in the users best interest. I disagree that a list is easier to read in this context. It creates the appearance of more length, making me want to completely skip it. Also, converting lists to prose is basically what everyone brings up on a GA or FA review. You can ignore it for now, but you can't forever. ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Lists are easier to read as lists than as a paragraph with semicolons embedded in it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, well, as a final thought on this issue, it requires no semicolons, and this will be brought up again at GA or FA time. So, it's just a postponement. ColdFusion650 (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Cinemaniac replies: There were some good points brought up here, but I hope we'll have these issues resolved before GA time. In any case, thank you all for responding. :) — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 00:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Cinemaniac replies, to ColdFusion650's and Baseball Bugs's comments above: The major concern I have with lists is that they can, upon expansion, easily become too large.  For example, see how this short entry of trivia became this rambling juggernaut, and you'll see my point.  However, I don't think such things apply to the list of musical numbers in the Duck Soup article, simply because those are the only musical numbers in the film, and so adding others would almost certainly be vandalism and be reverted.  But I hope we can eventually turn the list into prose, as some other editors might see the list as "trivia" and delete it without even really looking at it. — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 18:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. The only additions to such a list would either be factual additions that had been overlooked previously, or bogus additions subject to deletion. But what about other lists of songs, such as on movie soundtracks and other albums? Surely he wouldn't be arguing for converting those into prose. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The one difference is that soundtracks usually have numbered tracks. Maybe if the items in the list were numbered instead of being bullet points, would that please everyone? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Cliff smith
I'd like to briefly say that this article is in good shape, and as ColdFusion said, Cinemaniac and his fellows deserve props for their work. Beyond that, I also second most of what ColdFusion had to say, but I'll get specific. Well, keep up the good work: it's coming along well. And Happy New Year. Regards, Cliff smith (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The section about works referencing the film seems borderline trivia. If it can be integrated into the info on famous scenes, as long as it's properly ref'd of course, then it should be okay.
 * The cast usually warrants its own section. Each character should have a sentence or so of description, and perhaps an accompanying sentence about casting when available.
 * I'm not sure if explaining the film's title would warrant its own subsection, but that's not a major issue.
 * Get some more references, as many as possible. I'm aware that I don't really need to say that since it's been said already, but I think that it's an uncommon occurrance when any article can have too many references.
 * Like Erik said, there are probably more offline references for this film due to its age. Search 'em out.
 * I almost thought that the plot was too summarized, until I noticed that the film was just over an hour long. Well done on the plot summary.
 * Something about the film's soundtrack and VHS/DVD releases, as spoken of by Collectionian, should be present.
 * Finally, consider adding a sentence in the lead about the film's reception, perhaps something along the lines of how it was received when it came out and how it's perceived in present times. The lead is a little short anyway.
 * Cinemaniac replies: Yeah, I'm trying to get some more offline sources for the article.  Concerning the "explanation of the film's title" section, I got that idea from the To Kill a Mockingbird article, which I think is a good example of a good article, and which I will often look to for ways of making this article improve.  Unfortunately, by next week my busy schedule will be picking up again, what with the holiday season all but over, so I won't be able to respond quickly to feedback as I have for the week or two.  I sincerely hope that won't hinder the improvement of the article, though.  For a while, at least, you should expect my edits to focus almost solely on the two articles I've put up for peer review. Thank you for your comments. :) — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 17:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Asyndeton

 * I think that the intro is good, not over or under detailed but just right, containing the sort of info I would want to read straight off.


 * Personally, I think that the plot is too bare; I have never seen this movie and when reading it I felt as if it assumed you had some knowledge of what happens, e.g. why does Teasdale want Firefly as Freedonia's leader?


 * I also agree with ColdFusion650 about the famous scenes section; it doesn't really establish why they are 'famous'. I would suggest that, while it isn't quite trivia, it is a bit bloated as it is and could stand to be slimmed down and possibly renamed - 'Cultural references' perhaps? - or maybe merged somehow with 'Works referencing Duck Soup'.


 * The reception section is excellent in my opinion; interesting to read, well written, informative and well sourced. No complaints about that. Pretty much the same for 'Pre-production and development'.


 * As for the songs, I think that first we could stand to lose the info about when each song is played in the film. Trivial, IMHO. However, I agree with Baseball Bugs about converting the list to prose; personally, if I just saw a paragraph that contained nothing but a list of names, I would be very tempted to gloss it over. It just wouldn't make for easy reading. Also, I think a source is needed for saying that the into to Groucho's character is similar to Animal Crackers and Horse Feathers. Bit OR-ish without a source.


 * Finally, I think that 'Works referencing Duck Soup' could be viewed as trivia without sources, especially the Futurama one. asyndeton   talk  00:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the film never gives a reason why Mrs. Teasdale wants Firefly to become Fredonia's leader -- she simply insists on it at the very beginning of the film. It's part of the film's premise, and isn't explained -- it's that kind of comedy. (This is true of most of the Marx Brothers' films.  You either accept what's happening and go with the flow, to hilarious effect, or you don't.  If the films spent any time trying to make sense or rationalize the characters behaviors, they wouldn't be nearly as funny as they are -- in fact, they might not be funny at all.) BTW, you should really see it. A true classic. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you could say that Mrs. Teasdale wants Firefly because he is, in her words, "the most able statesman in all Freedonia." I could go on, but that's a lead-in to a series of Groucho's insults, which reveal that she is, at best, naive about Firefly's value as a statesman. Which is also part of the humor. And Vera Marquel says she has heard that Mrs. Teasdale is "sweet on this Firefly." So she might be letting emotion get in the way of judgment. But as you indicate, it doesn't pay to over-analyze the plot. One word, often used to describe the Marxes themselves: "Zany". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Cinemaniac replies, to Asyndeton's comments above: Thanks for your review of the Duck Soup article. While I await your opinion of the Princess Leia article,  I strongly recommend you see Duck Soup.  If you have a soft spot for surreal humour and biting satire of society, you will enjoy it quite a bit! :) — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 03:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Ruhrfisch

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments by GoodDay
The pre-production section could be trimmed down & possibly the famous scenes section (not sure wich one's to omit). Other then that, the article looks great to me. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Cinemaniac replies: Thanks for your comments. I've been thinking of trimming down the "famous scenes" section, because, admittedly, a few of the selected scenes described in that section aren't necessarily famous.  The "mirror scene", the "climactic production number", and the final battle scenes are, since most film scholars hail these as being the funniest moments in the film and since said scenes have been duplicated more than a few times afterward.  However, things like that dialogue between Chico and the Prosecutor aren't exactly famous, and should probably go down as a footnote instead.  — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 21:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Bws2002
After reading all the reviews above, I feel the only thing I have left to say is that the "This means War!" section is unnecessary. Good article overall, though - I particularly like the plot summary. Bws2002 (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)