Wikipedia:Peer review/Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull/archive1

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

 * 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 July 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 July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a good article. I need to at least get this up to FA status. It is one of the best articles on Wikipedia in my opinion. Any feedback on how to improve it shall be very much appreciated.

Thanks,  Greg  Jones   II  23:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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.
 * What makes http://www.theraider.net/ a reliable source?
 * Likewise http://www.comingsoon.net/?
 * And http://www.showbizspy.com/?
 * Generally, if you're going to use a source enough that you're just listing the bibliographical details once and then each footnote to the source is author and page number, you would then list the long entry for the source in a separate section titled "Bibliography" Or "Sources" and not at the top of the "references" section
 * What makes http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/02/27/indiana-jones-4-reshoots/ a reliable source? It says its a blog.
 * What makes http://www.jwfan.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1 a reliable source?
 * Current ref 62 is lacking all bibliographical information. (Friends of the World Heritage Adventrure Quiz) and same for current ref 63 (Firends of the world Heritage teams up ...) Needs publisher and last access dates at the very least.
 * What makes http://www.iesb.net/index.php a reliable source?
 * What makes http://www.paddocktalk.com/news/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=83076 a reliable source?
 * Likewise http://pinballnews.com/games/indianajones/index.html?
 * And http://www.comicscontinuum.com/stories/0802/13/darkhorsemay.htm?
 * Current ref 85 needs a last access date (Scott Bowles...)
 * Per the MOS, you shouldn't have all capitals, even in titles of weblinks. (current ref 106)
 * 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.) 13:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. That's a start - 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; 02:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is "also" really needed in  John Hurt and Jim Broadbent also play fellow academics.
 * Unclear who the three men are in Screenwriters Jeb Stuart, Jeffrey Boam, Frank Darabont and Jeff Nathanson wrote drafts, before David Koepp's script satisfied all three men.
 * 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 critical reception and box office is not. Please see WP:LEAD
 * I also think the lead goes into too much detail on the secrecy issues.
 * In the Box office section, I would make it clearer what the date for the box office receipts is.