Wikipedia:Peer review/The Story of Marie and Julien/archive1

The Story of Marie and Julien
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking of making a Good Article nomination and would like to get comments and improvements first. Though an established editor, this is the first article I've brought to the point I thought it might be of Good Article standard.


 * 1) The plot section is about 1000 words, over the film style guide's recommended 700-word limit. I've trimmed it back as much as I can without losing what seem to be important elements. The plot is split into an initial brief summary and then into the defined four parts of the film. Presenting it in this mainly chronological order seems the best approach as there's a very clear story arc. The section also contains some sourced story analysis, which does increase its length and I don't think the article would be improved by moving that analysis into a "Themes" section.
 * 2) I've included a lot of sources within the plot (which I know is unusual): it helps to verify that certain plot elements are important without needing to sit through 2 1/2 hours of the film, and it avoids suspicions of original research where there is any interpretation of events. I initially wrote the plot outline based on a watch through, but tweaked and added to it based on the sources.
 * 3) Should any images from the film be included? I've linked to some shots of the film on the talk page, but I am not sure on the fair-use justification.
 * 4) I've not included French or other non-English sources in the Reception section, which probably needs amending. Many of them are behind firewalls and while Google Translate and my school-boy French are fine for verifying facts they are of less help for faithfully translating opinion.
 * 5) Despite what I've said above, should there be a "Themes" section? Is the "Production and direction" section fine as one section (I think it hangs together OK), or should it be split?

Thanks, Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This seems broad in coverage, stable, neutral, well-illustrated, and verifiable. My main concerns are with the prose, which needs polish to get to GA level. The plot is rather long, but that might be remedied by creating a Themes sections after all. The Cast section is just a list, and the padding of the list is repetitive. Here are more specific thoughts:


 * The images look fine, and one fair-use image per article is probably all that can be justified.


 * I found it jarring to encounter critical comments in the Plot section. If you added a Themes section, the length of the Plot section would be somewhat smaller, and the film seems to explore interesting themes. If you haven't already done so, you might look at the featured articles at WP:FA to see how other editors have handled similar problems.

Lead
 * "Critical responses were mixed, with some finding it overly long, slow and pretentious, while others believed that it was moving, intelligent, and among Rivette's best work." - "With plus -ing" constructions are usually weaker and more wordy than alternatives. Suggestion: "Some critics found the film overlong, slow, and pretentious, while others said it was moving, intelligent, and among Rivette's best work."

Plot
 * "The centre of the film is the love story between Marie and Julien, with the tale of blackmail helping to tell this story." - Another "with plus -ing". "Tale" and "tell" is a bit repetitious. Suggestion: "The film, centered on the love story between Marie and Julien, includes a subplot involving blackmail."
 * "The film is separated into four parts, named to reflect the narrative perspective.[10][2]" - Serial citations like this should be arranged in ascending order; i.e., [2][10]. Ditto for similar strings of citations elsewhere in the article.
 * "finally revealed to be a ghost story— sees dream logic impinging on reality" - "involves" rather than "sees"?
 * The bolded terms like Julien should be unbolded, though italics would be fine. WP:MOSBOLD has details.
 * "but Marie stands him up" - Slang that some readers might take literally. Maybe "but Marie fails to appear"?
 * "Julien tracks her down when an unknown woman calls to tell him the hotel she is staying at, and she agrees to move in with him... ". - I had to read this three times to make sense of it. At first I thought it meant that the unknown woman agrees to move in with Julien. I think, though, it means that Marie agrees to move in with him, though only one phone call seems to be involved. Can this sequence be made more clear?
 * "He rings Marie's old boss who suggests talking to her friend Delphine" - The boss's friend or Marie's friend?
 * "Marie warns him that if he fails her he will lose all memory of her... ". - Not sure what "fails her" means here.
 * "Marie slowly covers her face with her hands —the forbidden gesture" - Has the forbidden gesture been mentioned or explained before this?

Production and direction
 * "Glenn Kenny notes that the "calm precision" of the mise en scène in the opening dream sequence "put [him] under such a powerful spell" that lasted the whole film." - Missing word? Maybe "that it lasted" rather than "that lasted"?

Reception
 * Film titles inside direct quotations as elsewhere should appear in italics.

Distribution
 * "The film was passed up by both Cannes and Venice" - Maybe "ignored" rather than "passed up"?
 * "The theatrical release in France and Belgium was on 12 November 2003, being seen by 239 people across 10 screens in Paris on the opening night." - Suggestion: "The film opened in France and Belgium on 12 November 2003; that night 239 people watched the film in Paris."
 * "The Arte Video release additionally features commentary by Lubtchansky over a cut-down version of the film (41:45), and an analysis of the film by Hélène Frappat (21:28)." - Does the 41:45 refer to the cut-down version or does it refer to the Lubtchansky commentary? Or are they the same? I don't think the sentence makes this clear.

Cast
 * The bolding should be removed per WP:MOSBOLD.
 * The details for the cast members seems mainly to repeat information already presented in the Plot section.

References
 * Even when a source uses all caps, Wikipedia uses its own house style. HISTOIRE DE MARIE ET JULIEN should be rendered as Histoire de Marie et Julien.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)