Wikipedia:Peer review/King Kong (2005 film)/archive1

King Kong (2005 film)

 * What do you think? --Revolución (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Just one thing, I think this statement is too POV: "In truth, it was beauty that saved the beast. Where Kong started out as a savage creature, Ann made him "beautiful" and gave him peace. It was society's fear, arrogance and ignorance that destroyed him." -- Astrokey44 |talk 10:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, agreed. Use Jack Black's quote at the end of the movie, to represent the viewpoint. --  z
 * In addition, there must be references, which are nonexistant in the article. Also, there needs to be inline citations, most often which occur in the form of footnotes. AndyZ 23:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of the article's lists (especially the Trivia section) should be rewritten into prose. These might fit into a new section about the Production of the film (see WikiProject Films). I'm not entirely sure, but wouldn't it make sense to combine the sections References to the 1933 version and Adaptation? Also, does it really need to say "in a scene from King Kong." at the end of every caption? I know we're supposed to state the obvious, but in this case that's pushing it. Possibly one could also move one of the images from the Story section (which is a little overcrowded right now) further down in the article, for example to the Criticism section (the picture of Kong and the Vastatosaurus Rex or the one with Kong and Ann would illustrate this part too, as Kong's size in contrast to the others is critisied)--Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC) they are blue

Good luck! Forever young 22:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Having had the article on my watchlist I have seen it develop for a while.
 * 1) About 70% of it is a list, that is a problem. Comparisons to 33 and 76(links in headings are not encouraged..I think) can surely be rewritten to be nice paragraphs.
 * 2) 3D version in the making? - Might want to rewrite the title, its the only title that is a question.
 * 3) The Trivia section - Don't know what to say here. But it would get slaughtered in an FAC review. Some will say that if its important, it should be in the article. From what I have seen there is a general push to phase out triva sections in film articles.
 * 4) The Cast section. Seems like its just there to make the article longer. Maybe something like this could be used?
 * 5) The Video Game section. Waste of section. Why would I follow the link if I have no idea what it is? Lead needs to be written with a further reading link at the top. See here for example and here, although there is no further info link on this one
 * 6) Don't see a references section, though there are embedded links in the article.
 * 7) There is no production section...I thought of film of this size would have that by now.
 * 8) The last picture in the plot section throws the next heading out of alignment. I doubt anyone else cares, but I think it would look cleaner if it did not do that...