Wikipedia:Peer review/Mulholland Drive (film)/archive1

===Mulholland Drive (film)===

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I saw this film a couple weeks ago, became quite obsessed with it, and added more than 30k of information within a week. I'd like to know if what has been added is clear, presents a coherent article, or if there are portions that need to be expanded or better explained. This is a particular concern since the subject material is confusing, even to those who have seen the film. I appreciate your assistance. Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is still open and located at Peer review/Mulholland Drive (film)/archive1.

Belovedfreak
Comment. Adam's house is actually on Mulholland Drive: Camilla gives the address as 6980 Mulholland Drive. The shortcut probably avoids a loop in the road. I've fixed this and some other stuff. Geometry guy 20:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Erik
Did you happen to come across any references about the blurring of Harring's private parts on the DVD? This seemed to be a little controversial in terms of censorship. Just wondering if that was worth adding to the "DVD release" section. I'll have more comments later, but I just wanted to mention this before I forget. Also, I think you may want to explicitly mention the significance of the image used in the Plot section in the caption, as opposed to just describing the scene from the film. Not all readers will go to the image description pages to understand the rationale for the image used. Perhaps a reference tag could be attached to the image since it is not in the same area as the supporting content? — Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dang. Yes, I came across that. I didn't want to add it because it seemed gratuitous and unnecessary for the article as a whole. Lynch pixelated Harring's pubic area because she didn't want it frozen on DVD screenshots all over the world. He respected her privacy and I will, too. I understand Wikipedia is not censored, but I won't add it, and I think it would cheapen the article.


 * Regarding the image in the Plot section, were you thinking of a caption similar to: "Bright and optimistic Betty (Naomi Watts) arrives in Los Angeles; pictured with Irene (Jeanne Bates). Lighting for Betty's character was different for Diane's (also played by Watts)" or something more specific? --Moni3 (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if mentioning the issue of censorship is gratuitous and unnecessary. It seems like people thought the studio was trying to censor nudity, but if Lynch took a stance clarifying that he was trying to help Harring.  This kind of information can't be abused; it's not like we're providing tips to depixelate the area for people only interested in that kind of thing.  Censorship is an ongoing topic in society, and this kind of censorship seems unique and important enough to be worth mentioning.  I can tell that you're not comfortable with dealing with this as you've avoided mention of it, but remember that you have to remain neutral in your shaping of the article's content.
 * For the image, my perspective was that "bright and optimistic" could be misconstrued as just a couple of adjectives instead of an appearance actively pursued in production. You could reword it to something like, "...arrives in Los Angeles with Irene (Jeanne Bates); Betty is purposely shown as bright and optimistic..." something along these lines. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 17:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I'm not uncomfortable with nudity, unless it embarrasses someone in particular. It seems Harring trusted Lynch to have the full-frontal shot low-lit, which it was, and on the movie screen she was visible for a second. But she did was not comfortable with the image going on the DVD. I'm not interested in exploiting her discomfort. Now, what I read were several statements on DVD reviews that described the pixelated changes as almost unnoticeable and the aforementioned reason being for her protection. However, I did not read any statements in reliable, secondary sources that claimed the studios were censoring the DVD. These statements may have come from fansites or discussion forums, but I can't use those. I get your point about studio censorship, and it is a good point to make. But I'm not sure if it can be made without a secondary source claiming the studio purposely altered the image on the DVD. --Moni3 (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to say definitely that there were reports that the studio itself wanted to censor it. I'll have to research it more, but I think it was more the general issue of censorship, and maybe people didn't think the director was directly responsible for censoring that part.  You're right that it needs reliable, secondary sources -- I'm sure there's been plenty of nonsense on message boards about that scene.  Would you mind if I poked around to see if it really is a big deal or not? — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 18:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, go ahead. This is something that should be very carefully written if you find anything. Kid gloves sort of thing. I have a ball hunting down information except when it comes to invading people's privacy. Then I start to have fits of guilt. This happened when I was writing Ann Bannon's article. I had dreams where she was very disappointed in me, and it cemented any idea on my part that I might be a good investigative journalist. I ended up asking her if I could use certain points, and she was gracious enough to tell me what to use what not to use. I have a feeling the hullaballoo about this scene will be primarily young gentlemen affronted that they are not able to pause and use this scene for their own benefit or gratification. --Moni3 (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Moni3 (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

..As promised. I haven't seen the movie, so some of the questions/comments regarding plot might seem silly or unnecessary to include. Instead I'll tried to focus on MOS and style type things, and general language, grammar and punctuation
 * Comments from User:Matthewedwards
 * The first sentence of the Plot section seems like an opinion, and could do with a reference if one is available
 * In the paragraph that begins with the diner, is the hitman stealing the book in the diner, or is it a different location/scene in the movie?
 * "They call Diane Selwyn, but she does not answer." They call the waitress by that name, or they call this Diane Selwyn woman on the phone?
 * Why does Betty flee before she can meet Adam?
 * How do they get Diane's address, when all Rita can remember is the woman's name?
 * "Upon returning to the apartment to open the box, Betty disappears, and Rita unlocks it and it falls to the floor." Disappears how, or to where? The last bit with the "and"s and "it"s reads slightly clump.
 * "The woman with the red hair investigates the sound, but nothing is there." What sound? Where did she come from? Didn't she vacate the apartment?
 * "I (had) a really strong..." I'm assuming "had" is an editorial addition, in which case it should be in square brackets, per WP:MOS
 * "even a close-frame shot of dog feces in one scene." perhaps could do with an "and" at the beginning
 * Jonathan Ross should be Wikilinked, Phillip French is with one L, according to Philip French
 * The subsection title, "A "poisonous valentine to Hollywood"" seems an odd choice. Why is this chosen over all the other critiques, espectially when the prose doesn't actually attribute it to anyone?
 * I feel that the whole Interpretations and allusions section should be moved to the critical reception part, as it is all about how movie critics percieved the movie
 * "The New York Times wrote..." rather someone from the NYT wrote.
 * "Apart from the obvious connection between the titles," Not so obvious to someone outside of America, perhaps
 * Refs [24][12][25] should appear in numerical order, Is three references necessary? It's not a controversial statement; I think one would suffice.
 * Watts' statement of "What am I doing here?" has the closing apostrophies the wrong way round. It should be a single apostrophy, followed by a double.
 * Does Premiere have an article to link to?
 * All the ... should be an ellipsis, per WP:MOS
 * Refs [36][35][37], again, is three necessary? If so they should be in numerical order
 * "But it is Betty's identity,..." Don't start a sentence with a conjunction
 * Refs [38][25], and [48][41], Again, should be placed in numerical order
 * "Rita … is a classic femme fatale with her dark, strikingly beautiful appearance." Can this be attributed to anyone, otherwise it looks like WP:OR ?
 * "However, although she is portrayed as weak..." is another conjunction used to start a sentence
 * "He's sort of the one character in the film who doesn't know what the [heck's] going on." Why is "heck" being used to substitute the original? Wikipedia is not censored.
 * "(thinks it) sees everything, has everything under control, even if we (and Betty)" Again, these be square brackets if they're an editorial replacement or insertion of text. It seems more like they're replacements, and I wonder what was the original, and what was wrong with it?
 * "(from the wreck)" seems to be an insertion so needs square brackets
 * "Best Picture by the New York Film Critics Circle[66]" ref should appear after punctuation
 * "This voluptuous phantasmagoria ...is" Per MOS above, it should be an ellipsis, with a space on either side. I don't think that just because the quoted text does it wrong, we need to copy the wrongness
 * I think the columns of both Awards tables should be of the same width.
 * Who did Lynch share the Canne Film Festival award with?
 * Don't use small text. Wikipedia should be WP:accessible to all, including those with poor eyesight

That's all from me. Some of these are my personal opinions, and don't need to be followed, others are MOS, which should. I have this page watchlisted now, but should you have any questions or comments about anything or want me to look over it again, let me know. -- ṃ• α• Ł• ṭ• ʰ• Ə• Щ•   @  01:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, hmmm. Ok. The format completely threw me, so I responded here. --Moni3 (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)