Wikipedia:Peer review/Science fiction film/archive1

Science fiction film
This article was a former candidate for Collaboration of the week and just barely missed getting the required vote. Since that time, however, it has gradually evolved into a fairly meaty article, and hopefully somewhat interesting. Is there anything that needs to be added, enhanced or cleaned up to turn it into a solid page? Thank you! RJH 20:30, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * A few points that occur to me:
 * The intro is a bit too long I think - it could do with being a more concise and accessible introduction to the subject.
 * I think it would make more sense and improve the flow of the article if the 'history' section came first.
 * Could be useful to discuss the evolution of different subgenres and how they reflect the concerns of society at the time. Some sci-fi is pure escapism, some is designed to point out flaws in society or fears for the future, etc.
 * I think the whole 'Sci fi as social commentary' could be expanded a great deal, some very very interesting stuff to be said I am sure. For an example, Heinlein's book of Starship Troopers seems to be thought of as betraying a very right wing point of view, whereas Verhoeven's film is a great satire from a left wing point of view on modern attitudes to nationalism and war.  Heinlein was writing in the 50s, McCarthy was rampant, there was a red under every bed.  The film was made in the 1990s after the cold war was over, and attitudes were radically different.  There must be plenty to say about this.
 * There are some POV problems, I think, and weasel words - eg Solaris is better than 2001, and thought by many to be the greatest sci-fi film of all time? Who thinks that?  Citations are needed.
 * A general proofreading would be good, there are a few capitalised words mid-sentence and other minor errors that I noticed. Worldtraveller 16:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I have edited the page and done some reformatting and expansion. It could still do with some editorial polish in a number of places, but it looks fairly decent I think. I'm sure time will take care of the rest. &mdash; RJH 01:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Good job. My notes: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * no mention of anime, with its strong collection of sf films like Ghost in the Shell (added them to see also for now), but it deserves at least its own paragraph, if not an entire section
 * a section on development of a thriving science fiction tv series industry might be appropriate as well. See Science fiction on television, another good peer review candidate, which was not ilinked from the current article at all. One may even consider a merger of some parts of both articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay I added a paragraph to the history section about the emergence of Sci-Fi movie animation. Not sure what else to say there that isn't already covered on the anime page. This page is only about sci-fi films, so I didn't think that TV series would be an appropriate sub-topic. The subject of sci-fi on television probably deserves its own page. Thanks. &mdash; RJH 19:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, here it is: Science fiction on television &mdash; RJH 19:04, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I think that since sf on tv evolved from sf on film, this process should be described as an influence/evolution of films, with the above article linked in appoproate section, not in see also. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not really clear about why that could not be covered on the Science fiction on television page. It would seem more appropriate to demonstrate the influence of Sci-Fi television on the film industry on the Science fiction film page, with a one-line sentence to cover the above case. Sorry. &mdash; RJH 20:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Not bad, though I have one complaint: the pictures appear to be a random collection of science fiction films' movie posters with no rhyme or reason for their selection or placement.  No explanation is provided for why they are there, nor how they correspond to the theme of the section or subsection that picture is in.  "When Worlds Collide" has an apocolyptic theme to it, which fits with the other films mentioned right along side the picture, but the caption just repeats the title of the movie.
 * Each of the posters (except the first) is also mentioned nearby in the text. Other than that, they were primarily placed for color; to break up the monotony of the text. Feel free to add a more meaningful caption, if you wish.
 * Done. :^)
 * Drat. I keep forgetting to type in the four tildes.  -- Zalasur 09:52, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments of the peer review, and have made a number of changes following those suggestions --209.247.222.103 21:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)