Wikipedia:Peer review/Persuasion (1995 film)/archive1

Persuasion (1995 film)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some feedback before I nominate it for FA status. It passed at the GA level back in 2011, so no other editors have looked at this in quite a while. I mainly would like to hear opinions on its prose – is it of FA quality? Is more copyediting necessary? If it helps, I modeled its structure after two other FAs I've written (Sense and Sensibility and Pride & Prejudice). Any comments are appreciated. Thank you!  Ruby  2010/  2013  02:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review- I've just written Turn of the Screw (2009 film) which is on a very similar topic (and even stars Redgrave). If you're amenable, I'll drop you a line if/when it goes to FAC/PR. Anyway, back to your article...
 * The lead image is a little large- even if it's not reduced, it should be tagged with orphaned non-free revisions
 * Image policy is a little out of my comfort zone, but I have tagged it with the orphaned non-free revisions note. Maybe when the next administrator sees it (due to the tag), they will reduce it?  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You can tag it for someone else to reduce by using non-free reduce. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have added the reduce tag.  Ruby  2010/  2013  03:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Persuasion follows the two becoming reacquainted with each other, as supporting characters and events threaten to interfere." The gerund throws slightly- perhaps this could be rephrased?
 * I've written this slightly -- "Persuasion follows the two as they become reacquainted with each other, while supporting characters threaten to interfere." How does it look now?  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Filming of Persuasion occurred during an upswing in popularity for Austen's works – it was one of six such adaptations during the mid-1990s." Of Austin books, or of Persuasion in particular?
 * I've replaced "such" with "Austen" for clarity.  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "when the BBC partnered" You are yet to mention that it was a BBC production. Also, is the French company worth linking? Don't be scared of red links! (I assume it's a TV film? Also worth mentioning.)
 * Good point! (originally the lead sentence mentioned the BBC). I've now introduced the BBC's role in the lead.  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Quotes should be cited, even in the lead!
 * Looking again, this is actually a paraphrase, so the quotation isn't needed (let me know if you feel differently). I've thus left the citation out of the lead.  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Before I forget- there's no mention anywhere of a DVD release.
 * I hate writing these sections. :/ But I will see what I can find.  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Wentworth becomes the focus of matrimony to Louisa and Henrietta" I can guess what is meant, but I don't think this reads so well.
 * How does it look now? "Louisa and Henrietta begin to pursue marriage with Wentworth, as the family..."  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Louisa having recovered and become engaged to Captain Benwick, Wentworth arrives in Bath and encounters Anne on several occasions, though their conversations are brief." It's not clear what the first part of this sentence has to do with the second; it reads a little oddly
 * Narratively, to Anne they are related (since she assumes Wentworth was engaged to marry Louisa and is then surprised to see him in Bath). But I've tweaked the sentence slightly and split it out.  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "keep the baronet from possibly marrying Mrs. Clay" By "the baronet", do you mean Elliot's father? (Or whoever he is due to inherit from?)
 * Anne's father is the baronet. I've realized that this isn't made clear in this sentence, so I've made a few tweaks to it.  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps at first mention you should clarify who Higson is.
 * I've identified him as a film scholar. I quote and cite a lot of film scholars throughout the article, so I avoided identifying them due to redundancy (and to keep things less boring!). This was a suggestion for one of the other Austen film articles, and I agreed with it then. What do you think? Is it worth saying each person's professional background each time I cite them?  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think some of your dashes are spaced when they shouldn't be. From WP:DASH: "The birds—at least the ones Darwin collected—had red and blue feathers."
 * I've gone through and addressed those.  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Dear later wrote that Persuasion was superficially "a love story in the Cinderella mould," but it was also one of "realism and truthfulness," particularly in telling the story of two people separated and then reunited." MOS:LQ?
 * Now corrected.  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "classmates. "I was the only boy in my class who took Austen as a special paper," he said." Again
 * Now corrected.  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * On the other hand- shouldn't the quote from Root in the box have the punctuation inside the speech marks?
 * Sure (I'm not too sure on LQ conventions).  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Root as "haggard," which attracted the actress. "I relish a job like this, starting off downtrodden and gradually blossoming," she said" Again
 * Now corrected.  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "They shot Persuasion in" Who is "they"?
 * Tweaked wording.  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "see "what a difference [her character's] sense of unhappiness can create," as" LQ
 * Now corrected.  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "his profession," he was" Again?
 * Now corrected.  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The screenshot's too big, and the rationale is too light
 * I've decreased the screenshot's size in the article. What do you feel I need to add to its rationale? I thought it provided a good summary of why the screenshot is needed.  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant the file is too big. The "NA"s in the rationale could do with being replaced (even if it's just with some fairly standard comments) and you could tie the purpose to the text a little better. I do think the image is justified, but, going into FAC, you'll want the rationales tip-top. Also, you should probably add a citation for the quote in the caption- quotes are always going to need to be referenced. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added the reduce tag and bolstered the rationale. The citation is also now directly sourced.  Ruby  2010/  2013  03:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "She continued in a separate interview," I think this implies a relationship between the two comments which isn't truly there
 * Changed to "she said".  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "they often had to compete" Again, who's "they"?
 * The whole crew responsible for the production. I've changed this to "the crew".  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "For her work in the film, Byrne won a BAFTA for Best Costume Design.[27]" I'm not certain about this, but shouldn't this be in an awards section, rather than the production section?
 * I thought it wouldn't hurt to include this in the costume design section as additional background (it's more relevant to the reader when it;s there, rather than tagged on in the end). And this is what I did with Sense and Sensibility as well.  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "This decision further increased funding to £1,000,000, and Persuasion was shot on 35 mm film." These two facts don't seem to be related?
 * The source seems to imply they are related but I can't figure out why (unless the ability to film on 35 mm film is expensive?).  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Michell agreed to compromise, opting to shoot one British version and one American version.[30][34]" You should clarify which is which
 * I've made this clearer.  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "something like a kiss," she said.[13]" LQ?
 * Now corrected.  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Morrison cites Anne's adamant defence of her visit to Mrs. Smith in the film as an example" Could you expand a bit on what this scene is?
 * I've added in a bit of text to hopefully clarify this.  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "haste to stop Wentworth from leaving the concert" Again
 * Same, fixed to clarify.  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "For example, in the novel during an early party Anne offers to play the pianoforte like usual, this time slightly tearful but also "extremely glad to be employed" and "unobserved"." This prose could do with a massage
 * Split the sentence with a semicolon for clarity.  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In the last paragraph of the class/gender section, it's not completely clear when you're talking about the book and when the film
 * Tweaked to hopefully clarify.  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "it a "critic's pick," praising" LQ
 * Now corrected.  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "The Boston Globe highlighted Root's performance, calling it "a heart-stoppingly reticent yet glorious debut".[62]" Avoid personifying publications
 * Added the name of the Globe critic.  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Generally very strong- I really like the way that the article leans on the scholarly sources. I do think a copyedit may help- I doubt that I've caught everything. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for reviewing! Truly. I will get to addressing these shortly.  Ruby  2010/  2013  00:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, I believe I have gone through all of your comments, Josh. Thanks again for leaving these suggestions! Concerning the incorporation of home media, I've looked and cannot find anything reliable about the release of a VHS and/or DVD (I of course know the latter, at least, exists since I own it!). How important do you feel this section is to the article?  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not very, but I do think at least at acknowledgement that a DVD/video release exists may be useful. The BBFC has the video release date (see this page) and the BBC shop notes that the DVD was released 23 January 2012 (the Blu-ray seems to be a different adaptation). That information alone, slotted into the "release" section, would be helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links! -- I've incorporated the BBC one into the article. The BBFC link wasn't right so I found a few others for the VHS release (I'm unsure on their reliability since they are commercial sources though -- unless you have any thoughts on the matter, I may just see if anyone comments on them during the FA review). Let me know if you think of anything else! I plan to give another thorough review to the article and its prose over the next week, and hopefully nominate it sometime next week (so I'll keep this PR open until then).  Ruby  2010/  2013  03:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)