Wikipedia:Peer review/V for Vendetta (film)/archive1

I wanted to put this through peer review to possibly gather some more opinions on how to improve the article. For example; are there any references missing, any POV issues, style issues (could it be better?) etc. Also, the differences fom the graphic novel/symbolism/trivia sections, could they be presented better? Thanks for your time. Cvene64 06:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good articles should not have trivia sections. If facts don't fit under fairly narrowly defined section headers, they most likely shouldn't be in the article at all. The Roman numeral speculation definetely doesn't belong.
 * I don't feel an entire header with several subsections should be used just to describe minor differences in details between the comic and the film. Shorten down or merge with the plot outline.
 * Peter Isotalo 07:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I personally deleted the trivia section, but it was put back in. As for the Differences, I believe people are trying to sort that out at the moment. Thanks for your comments. Cvene64 08:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Symbolism and Cultural References" section is well-intended and interesting but simply far too speculative for an encyclopaedia. Either you need to find critical reviews noting this symbolism or it needs to go. Also the article needs a thorough copyedit because some of the sentences are badly structured and far too long. I will happily do this myself once the article is trimmed suitable as advised above. I don't want to seem too negative because this is a decent article on a decent film but it needs to mature and stabilise considerably. Soo 16:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I will work on that very soon. Any copyediting that you could do later would be very much appreciated as well. Thanks for you comments. Cvene64 17:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have some POV issues in the section comparing it to the comics. It seems rather leading to me, saying that fans were concerned before the release, but then leading with the word "however" into a positive critical review and David Lloyd's positive comments, and then Natalie Portman's positive comments, never suggesting that any fans were displeased (outside of a quick mention to Alan Moore), but instead leading right into the changes. Being a fan who essentially agrees with Alan Moore's criticisms, I don't find it neutral and think it needs to be worked over more fairly. Sarge Baldy 10:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Greetings Sarge. I know you are quite knowledgable about the comic, and thus I would like to ask you specific advice.  In terms of gauging fan reaction, what sites do you think would be most appropriate?  From what I've seen, this site seems to be well respected.  Do you have any comments or suggestions?--P-Chan 20:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think gauging overall fan reactions is difficult. Part of the problem is that most movie critics (and most others) aren't fans of the series (even if they have read it), and so have less basis for comparison. And since we rely on these sources in gauging reaction, it can be a bit problematic. If you read various threads or commentaries (on IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes or elsewhere) it seems clear a number of fans had problems with the adaptation, while others didn't. I suppose it depends in part how people read it or what they found the purpose to be. For myself, I agree consistently with Alan Moore, and find this review poignant as well. For me the important thing with the book was it was a political and moral drama. The government has been toned down significantly and V's objectives are blurred. Susan's obsession with Fate and the infighting in the government ("Authority, when first detecting chaos at its heels, will entertain the vilest schemes to save its orderly facade. But always order without justice, without love or liberty, which cannot long postpone their world's descent into pandemonium.") were even called "minor" in the film page, although were actually essential. It might help to bring the bulk of Alan Moore's criticisms down to that section, and avoid leading to make it sound like everyone thought the film was very accurate to the original works. Although a critic can say so, we should leave that as a single opinion and not some universal impression. When the actual creator says it's really off the mark, it's pretty clear that we need to establish that not everyone thinks so. Sarge Baldy 23:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Numerous changes have occurred (since the beginning of the peer review) that have been made in accordance to the suggestions listed here. While far from ideal, would it be possible to say, if the article moving towards an ideal wikipedia state or away from it?

Changes:
 * Trivia has Shrunk (and will remove trivia eventually)
 * Reorganized "Origianl Novel Differences" section to be more descriptive
 * The first portion of the "Symbols section" is now referenced and some of the weaker points have been removed, as opposed to the second half which has yet to be heavily edited.

Comments would be most appreciated. --P-Chan 23:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)