Wikipedia:Peer review/Top Gun/archive1

Top Gun
The article has been written by many including myself over a long period of time. Most importantly, the first sections, Conception (Inspirations and Script) and Casting (Background) as well as the Music section lack references big time. This is because most of the information was noted from interviews and other material from the special edition DVD. So how does one go about to reference that form of media? I can go and search the internet for some sources, but I doubt I would find them all. So is it possible to use a DVD/DVD material/DVD booklet as a reference, if so, how?

Thats the main issue at the moment, but if any could check for things like bias, style etc that would be great. Any help/comment/suggestions would be great. ThanksForever young 17:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ask at the talk page of WP:CITE how to go about citing interviews. It's not a highly scholarly source, and wouldn't be appropriate in citing some material, but for the right material about the making of the movie itself, for ex, it would be good to cite the documentary about making the movie. For specific comments, trivia sections are considered very bad form and never fail to get negative reviews in the WP:FAC process if that was your goal. The feeling is the material is either important enough to work properly into the prose, or it's just not important enough to cover at all, or should be moved to a subarticle if need be. Same for pop culture ref. They should either be covered in the article on the topic the reference is from or not at all, unless they are very important in some way and that can be verified. Finally too many short paragraphs. See above. - Taxman Talk 19:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. I left a message at Cite and will get onto your suggestions. Forever young 02:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Forever, here are a couple suggestions for you;
 * Try to shorten sentences. I'm guilty of this one myself, and know personally this gets attacked during the FAC process.  For example, "The primary inspiration for the film was discovered by producer Jerry Bruckheimer when he found an article in the May 1983 issue of California magazine which would form the basis of the film" could be shortened to "Producer Jerry Bruckheimer was influenced by a 1983 issue of California magazine" -- it says the same thing in considerably less words.  Another example, "Though the Navy hated the film An Officer and a Gentleman, which did not follow any of the criteria that the Navy provided to the Top Gun producers, and which was an embarrassment to the Navy's reputation, the Navy still recognized that it may have aided naval recruitment - an idea which may have been influential in the decision to cooperate with Top Gun producers.", appears to be several sentences without a period and can be broken down.
 * You'll need references for all those military recruitment statements. "...and, by no surprise dramatically increased the Air Force..." should delete "by no surprise dramatically", as someone might have been shocked by this.  Also, "Unsurprisingly, it boosted the Air Force and Navy's recruitment. This was evident in the fact that the Navy used its success by having recruitment booths in some theaters to lure enthusiastic patrons."  Again, it feels like an opinion, and specific numbers might be needed to back this up.
 * So essentially, the facts are in the article but it needs a substancial copy edit for grammar, punctuation, and wordiness. Also, I agree with the above about striking the Trivia and Pop Culture sections.  They'll never get through a FAC review.
 * I hope this helps you. Best of luck with the article! --Ataricodfish 06:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. This is all great. Will get onto asap. Forever young 06:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * First, from http://www.dianahacker.com/resdoc/history/bibliography.html, in accordance with the Chicago Manual of Style:
 * Published or broadcast interview
 * Haviv, Ron. Interview by Charlie Rose. The Charlie Rose Show. Public Broadcasting System, February 12, 2001.
 * Video or DVD
 * The Secret of Roan Inish. DVD. Directed by John Sayles. 1993; Culver City, CA: Columbia Tristar Home Video, 2000.
 * Alternatively, APA says:
 * Film or Videotape
 * Weir, P.B. (Producer), & Harrison, B.F. (Director). (1992). Levels of consciousness [Videotape]. Boston, MA:Filmways.
 * Interviews
 * Archer, N. (1993). [Interview with Helen Burns, author of Sense and Perception]. Journal of Sensory Studies, 21, 211-216.
 * Second, other comments: currently, the article's problems include lack of referencing and awkward phrasing. As mentioned above all quotes need to be referenced. Other statements that should/could be referenced include statements about what others thought (like "originally thinking that the article..." or "the Navy hated the film An Officer and a Gentleman"), what sources said (like "Reports indicate ..." or "...willing to aid the film on three conditions..."), and value-based claims (like "soundtrack is one of the most popular soundtracks to date" or "The cast became notorious in the San Diego area;"). At least one reference in the "Video games" would be nice. Try to get a more diversified reference section (not just common websites like IMDB) Examples of awkward phrases include: "The primary inspiration for the film was discovered by producer Jerry Bruckheimer when he found..." (go with one verb), "...came from none other than Bruce Webber,", "...it seemed as though the whole of Hollywood had hit town at once." (verbous), "Loggins hatched a plan to pick a smaller scene, one that might not be to popular..." (just say he performed a smaller venue), etc. Other suggestions: consider a table for the "Cast" similar to the one in "Awards" and consider a table of the nominations, too. I agree with the above views that the popular culture section should go. I would consider the Hot Shots! movie worthy of keeping, but the 3 second spots on the Simpsons/JAG not worthy of mention. Consider merging it with video games as a "Spin-offs", "Media impacts", or what-have-you section. --maclean 25  23:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)