Wikipedia:Peer review/Kamikaze Hearts (film)/archive1

Kamikaze Hearts (film)


Hi! I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to turn it into a GA.

Thanks, ◇  Helen   Degenerate  ◆ 00:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey HelenDegenerate, this PR has been dormant for a little while now. Are you interested in further comments, or would you like this discussion to be closed? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. I’ve received a ton of valuable feedback, but since my life has gotten busier in the past few months, I’m still working to implement it all. ◇  Helen   Degenerate  ◆ 02:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @HelenDegenerate: No problem! We all have our lives off-wiki, and there's no deadline on any of this. Just to make absolutely sure I'm not misunderstanding you, did you answer "Yes." to the first part of my question or the second? (Or both? :)) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @TechnoSquirrel69 Sorry for the confusion! I meant ‘yes’ to closing the discussion. ;) ◇  Helen   Degenerate  ◆ 03:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought, but it's always good to be sure XD —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720
Comments after a quick skim:


 * The lede typically doesn't need citations, per MOS:CITELEDE, as the information is usually also in other parts of the article.
 * "Tina "Tigr" Mennett as herself[9][10][11][12]" Are four citations needed for this? Is this a controversial fact?
 * The "Production" section is quick small, particularly the filming part, and perhaps can be expanded upon or merged.
 * The "Release" section is also quite small, and I suggest expanding upon this.
 * "SFe for Time Out magazine said "sometimes the camera is a coolly discriminating, independent viewpoint, sometimes a goggling, peeping eye"." Why is this important and what is this commenting on? Put this quote in context, or summarise what it says.
 * The Reception section falls into the "X says Y" trap. Read WP:RECEPTION for information on how to avoid this.
 * Suggest archiving the citations, using IABot. Here's a link to this.
 * If you are looking for more sources, try WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, or databases from your local library system.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry for taking a while to respond. Thank you for the feedback! Here is how it’s coming along:
 * The lede typically doesn't need citations, per MOS:CITELEDE, as the information is usually also in other parts of the article.
 * ✅ I do have one question, though— do you think should I restore the citations which backed up the genre (quasi-documentary)? KH doesn’t get referred to as this throughout the rest of the article.
 * "Tina "Tigr" Mennett as herself[9][10][11][12]" Are four citations needed for this? Is this a controversial fact?
 * ✅ Not controversial at all; I’ve gone ahead and removed the excess citations. Also, quite a few of those sources appeared to be unreliable, so we’ve just killed two birds.
 * The "Production" section is quick small, particularly the filming part, and perhaps can be expanded upon or merged.
 * on this. I’m probably going to end up merging the two because I can’t find anything else on how it was filmed.
 * The "Release" section is also quite small, and I suggest expanding upon this.
 * ✅ I also merged a relatively short portion of Reception with Release. As far as I could tell, there wasn’t any available info about how the film did at the box office when it was first released. The only numbers I found were those of the 2022 re-release. It seemed more appropriate to merge.
 * "SFe for Time Out magazine said "sometimes the camera is a coolly discriminating, independent viewpoint, sometimes a goggling, peeping eye"." Why is this important and what is this commenting on? Put this quote in context, or summarise what it says.
 * The Reception section falls into the "X says Y" trap. Read WP:RECEPTION for information on how to avoid this.
 * Still on these two.
 * Suggest archiving the citations, using IABot. Here's a link to this.
 * ✅ by . Thank you; I was struggling to get the bot running.
 * If you are looking for more sources, try WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, or databases from your local library system.
 * ✅ Oh yeah! I’d forgotten all about TWL. I signed up and poked around for a bit, but sadly didn’t find anything. ◇  Helen   Degenerate  ◆ 00:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I also recommend DOAJ.org and archive.org (sometimes I find results on Google Books, then find the full book on archive.org). Z1720 (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Copy edits
I scanned the article and made a few copy edits. Uri24 (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis

 * "1986 American quasi-documentary film"-- are you referring to Pseudo-documentary?
 * Typically, your paragraph 2 (synopsis) would be merged into the first paragraph, also suggest expanding the last paragraph with info about its production and reception (production --> release --> reception)
 * The poster's alt text needs to be descriptive for blind readers. As brief as possible, describe what is being depicted in the poster
 * I would typically not cite the infobox; instead I'll put enough detail about its production/release in their respective sections and have the citations there
 * "$6669" --> "$6,669"
 * Suggest including more parameters in the infobox, particularly duration and language(s), also producers and cinematographers if any are credited
 * Note that I copyedited the plot abit
 * Instead of citing every cast member, you can just write a sentence above the bulleted list: "Cast list adapted from Lesbian Film Guide[1]"
 * "Kamikaze Hearts, originally named Fact or Fiction,"-- why are there two references placed at different parts of the sentence?
 * "began shooting the movie"-- the film
 * Is there no exact date for the November 1986 release?
 * If the accolades is only one I suggest just putting it in the release section.
 * I recommend reading WP:RECEPTION on how to craft a good reception section. What I think this article would benefit from is structuring reviews based on topics of discussion, like direction, cinematography, acting, etc. Or one paragraph for positive reviews and another for negative. You did this well in the first paragraph's first sentence, just needs abit more polishing
 * You can probably use the AllMovie review as citation for the reception instead of dumping it in the exlink

, sorry if I seem late to this, but I thought I might pass by WP:PR and put a couple of comments! This is an interesting film and I'll put this on my watchlist. Hopefully you'll benefit from these comments! Also just FYI, I have my own film PR that's anticipating FAC, if you're interested to take a look at. Have a nice day :) !  Gerald WL  04:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, Gerald, you're not late at all! There is no rush here. Thank you so much for the comments; I've started incorporating some of them. Here's a more comprehensive breakdown of what has and hasn't gotten done:
 * "1986 American quasi-documentary film"-- are you referring to Pseudo-documentary?
 * I believe so. 'Quasi-documentary' was the exact term used by the NYT review, so I wanted to retain the description given by the source. Think I should keep the wording, but link to pseudo-documentary instead?
 * In my opinion, it's a pretty easy synonym of pseudo? But piping it as you suggested sounds fine too.
 * Typically, your paragraph 2 (synopsis) would be merged into the first paragraph, also suggest expanding the last paragraph with info about its production and reception (production --> release --> reception)
 * Not done yet, but might start drafting something soon.
 * The poster's alt text needs to be descriptive for blind readers. As brief as possible, describe what is being depicted in the poster
 * ✅ It now reads: 'The film's re-release poster. Tigr Mennett and Sharon Mitchell embrace.' Let me know if I can improve this any.
 * I think you can remove first sentence as it's stated in caption.
 * I would typically not cite the infobox; instead I'll put enough detail about its production/release in their respective sections and have the citations there
 * Will do.
 * "$6669" --> "$6,669"
 * Suggest including more parameters in the infobox, particularly duration and language(s), also producers and cinematographers if any are credited
 * on that. I'm going back over the sources right now to find more info, see what I can add.
 * Note that I copyedited the plot abit
 * Thank you!
 * Instead of citing every cast member, you can just write a sentence above the bulleted list: "Cast list adapted from Lesbian Film Guide[1]"
 * ✅ It looks so much cleaner this way.
 * "Kamikaze Hearts, originally named Fact or Fiction,"-- why are there two references placed at different parts of the sentence?
 * ✅ No idea, so I fixed it.
 * "began shooting the movie"-- the film
 * Is there no exact date for the November 1986 release?
 * Haven't found anything consistent. I do have one source that says it was on the 8th, but since the structure of the webpage is really confusing, I'd like to find more sources that verify this before I include it.
 * I see. If there are no sources you could fine, I think that should be okay :)
 * If the accolades is only one I suggest just putting it in the release section.
 * ✅ The lone Accolades sentence is lonely no more.
 * I recommend reading WP:RECEPTION on how to craft a good reception section. What I think this article would benefit from is structuring reviews based on topics of discussion, like direction, cinematography, acting, etc. Or one paragraph for positive reviews and another for negative. You did this well in the first paragraph's first sentence, just needs abit more polishing
 * I'm trying to sort the reviews by topic, but haven't sifted through all of them yet. That's why the first three paragraphs are somewhat more organised compared to the rest. I've read WP:RECEPTION before, but a refresher certainly couldn't hurt. I also know that leek (theleekycauldron) can write a mean Reception section (we've done a collab before), so I might reach out to her at some point too.
 * You can probably use the AllMovie review as citation for the reception instead of dumping it in the exlink
 * Ah, I hadn't noticed the review before! This is exactly what PRs are for-- an extra set of eyes.
 * I couldn't have said it better! Glad to have taken this to your notice.
 * Once again, thank you for the feedback. It's always appreciated. Also, about your film PR-- right now I'm a tad busy in real life, but I'll see what I can do :) ◇  Helen   Degenerate  ◆ 20:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries about that! I've put some responses to your responses.  Gerald WL  04:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again, thank you for the feedback. It's always appreciated. Also, about your film PR-- right now I'm a tad busy in real life, but I'll see what I can do :) ◇  Helen   Degenerate  ◆ 20:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries about that! I've put some responses to your responses.  Gerald WL  04:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)