Wikipedia:Peer review/Raging Bull/archive1

Raging Bull

 * 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 October 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 October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to know if my contributions have been of any benefit.

Thanks, Kilnburn (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Images: Layout and structure: Overall, I think most of the content is there. But it needs major massaging and some reorganization. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * David Fuchs
 * Too many fair use images; see WP:NFCC and FA-class film articles for examples of proper fair use rationales and of how to use nonfree images sparingly.
 * The plot section, at around 800-some words, is a tad long. It might be better to slim it down slightly.
 * If the cast section is just going to be a bland table, perhaps merge it with casting as seen in Alien (film)?
 * The article needs a thorough copyedit. In particular, the use of commas needs to be audited, for example: "A couple of years later, in the middle of a photo shoot, Jake LaMotta surrounded by his wife and children, tells the journalists he is officially retired and that he has bought a new property" should be "Years later Jake Lamotta, surrounded by his wife and children, tells the journalists he is officially retired and that he has bought a new property" for clarity, as well as not leaving clauses hanging.
 * I've never watched the film; is it in black and white? Otherwise its confusing to see everything in monochrome.
 * Issues with Manual of Style compliance: for example, no left-aligned images under level three headings (see Raging Bull
 * Another example of bad prose rendering the article incoherent: "However the events surrounding John Hinckley Jr's assassination attempt of Ronald Reagan trying to impress Jodie Foster the way that the character, Travis Bickle put his life on the line in the film Taxi Driver hurt the film's chances" --whaaa?
 * I'm concerned that information such as critical opinions and reception is sourced to books instead of the actual reviews themselves, and that much of the article is based on just two or three sources.