Wikipedia:Peer review/Who Framed Roger Rabbit/archive2

Who Framed Roger Rabbit
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I think it looks much like a featured article now. Anything that you can suggest will be fine with me.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, Bulldog edit my talk page   da contribs  21:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this film, which is one of my favorites. I agree that it is close to FA, but think it needs some work before it would pass WP:FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement. Done. Bulldog edit my talk page   da contribs  14:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Added "in". Bulldog edit my talk page   da contribs  14:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Changed "lapsed" to "ran". Bulldog edit my talk page   da contribs  14:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Done. Bulldog edit my talk page   da contribs  14:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Done. Bulldog edit my talk page   da contribs  14:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many FAs in Category:FA-Class Animation articles, but only two seem to be films (Fritz the Cat (film) and The Lord of the Rings (1978 film), so these might be models for the animation sections). There are many FAs on films at Category:FA-Class film articles, so there should be some useful models there too. I try to pick recent featured articles as models, as the standards have gotten more stringent over time.
 * The toolbox in the top right corner of this PR page finds two dab links that need to be fixed.
 * The lead seems short for an article of this length. WP:LEAD suggests two to three paragraphs for the lead in articles this size. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
 * One of the hardest FA criteria for most articls at FAC to meet is a professional level of English. This is generally well-written, but I think a copyedit would help polish the rough spots before FAC. A few examples of rough language follow, all from just the lead:
 * There are several reviewers at FAC who really dislike verb + ing constrcutions, so ... based on Gary K. Wolf's novel Who Censored Roger Rabbit?, depicting a world in which cartoon characters interact directly with human beings. might be better as something like ''... based on Gary K. Wolf's novel Who Censored Roger Rabbit?, which depicts a world in which cartoon characters interact directly with human beings.
 * Missing word? Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman wrote two drafts of the script before Disney brought [in?] Steven Spielberg and Amblin Entertainment to help finance the film.
 * I do not think lapse can be used in this way as a verb (lapse longer??) While filming, the production budget began to rapidly expand and the shooting schedule lapsed longer than expected.
 * A film can receive critical accliam, I am not sure it can be released with it (perhaps released to critical acclaim) ''However, the film was released with financial success and critical acclaim.
 * The interest was in the golden age, not from it Who Framed Roger Rabbit brought a re-emerging interest from the golden age of American animation ...
 * More to come soon - saving this review for now...


 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

More Hope this helps, enjoyed the article and learned several things about a movie I really like. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to see the language issues I pointed out are fixed, but this still needs a copyedit before FAC. I am sorry that do not have time to copyedit it or point out all the problems. WP:GOCE or WP:PR/V are two places to find copyediting help.
 * In Plot, the article is inconsistent about how actors who play a role are identified. Some are full name, others last name only. Since some of these have not been named previously in the lead, I would use their full names here (I would not count the infobox).
 * ✅ I have limited it to the characters who were not in the lead. All the characters that were one name were already in the lead. I hope that's better. Jhenderson  7 7 7  00:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Watch WP:OVERLINKing - link once in the lead and most people are Ok with linking once again the article body (usually at first appearance for each). Links in infoboxes, captions and references are OK too, but the screen writiers are linked twice in the body (plus once each in the lead, infobox, and refs). Golden Age of American animation is linked 3 times in the body (and once in the lead)
 * Some of the links are of dubiuous value - does linking surreal really help the reader understand this film better? (by the way, I love the link to death from laughter)
 * Honestly I think I can get that done faster if I know which specific links you are taking about. ;) Jhenderson  7 7 7  00:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In the Cast section, it seems like some of the details might be better in other parts of the article. It is interesting to know that Harrison Ford and Bill Murray were considered for the role of Eddy Valiant, but would these be better somewhere in the Production section? Similarly knowing that someone else was considered for the role of Benny the cab doesn't really seem to belong in the Cast description of Roger Rabbit, and the Tex Avery inspiration might also fit b etter in development / production.
 * I assume that things found in the credits of the movie do not need a ref (as the movie itself is the source). However It is often noted that, despite her performance and trademark, sultry voice, Kathleen Turner is not listed in the closing credits as providing the speaking voice for Jessica Rabbit needs a ref (since she is not credited, and we need to know who notices this). In general I would say that any sort of detail not directly from the film (Lloyd not blinking, or having worked with Zemeckis before) should be moved out of Cast and into other parts of the article. There is enough in Cast to make a casting paragraph in Production, probably after the last paragraph of Development
 * Sentence does not make sense - to offer your services does not imply that you have been hired, but being let go does:  Robert Zemeckis offered his services as director in 1982,[1] but Disney acknowledged that his previous films (I Wanna Hold Your Hand and Used Cars) were box office bombs, and thus let him go.[5]
 * Lead says Disney brought in Steven Spielberg and Amblin Entertainment to help finance the film. but development does not. Since the lead is a summary of the whole article, it should not have unique things in it (and this needs a ref)
 * I doubt that the third Chinatown movie would have had the exact same plot as the Cloverleaf subplot here (toons? Judge Doom dropping pianos on people? ;-) )
 * In Writing the last sentence of the first paragraph (comic strip toons in the novel) doesn't really fit with the rest of the paragraph. WHy not start the second paragraph with this, then say that other plot changes involved finding a suitable antagonist...
 * Since Disney did not distribute The Thief and the Cobbler, should this article note that somehwere? Perhaps in a note, since it is tangential to this film.
 * Did they really "hire" Spielberg or were they partners?
 * Needs a ref Filming began on December 5, 1986 and lasted for 7½ months at Elstree Studios, with an additional four weeks in Los Angeles and at Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) for blue screen effects of Toontown.
 * Animation section - please read WP:ITALIC and also look at capitalization. Dynamic is not spelled dinamic.
 * The whole Home videa section has no references and needs some
 * Needs a ref Animation legend Chuck Jones made a rather scathing attack of the film in his book Chuck Jones Conversations. Among his complaints, Jones accused Robert Zemeckis of robbing Richard Williams of any creative input and ruining the piano duel that both he and Williams storyboarded.
 * Critical reception sections seems a bit skimpy to me - for a film this popular and this well-received, this section seems short
 * Identify which awards the nominations were for (Saturns, presumably) ''Bob Hoskins, Christopher Lloyd and Joanna Cassidy were nominated for their performances, while Alan Silvestri and the screenwriters received nominations.[21]
 * How does File:Mickey-mouse-bugs-bunny-113.jpg meet WP:NFCC? What does seeing the image do for the reader that text along could not? WHat makes it more than just an illustration?
 * For the short films, I would link to List of Who Framed Roger Rabbit media. Since they were released in 1989, 1990, and 1993,  all of which were Walt Disney's first theatrical shorts since Goofy's Freeway Trouble in 1965 is at best misleading.
 * This seems like a WP:WEIGHT issue, but it seems odd to have four paragraphs on the unproduced sequel and only two sentences on the short cartoons that were released and were pretty popular.
 * Make sure that sources cited support what the article says. There are two things i checked, and in both cases what I was able to see online for refs did not match well with what the article says. This is very worrisome.
 * The first place where sources do not match the article is There is also controversy over the scene where Daffy Duck and Donald Duck are playing a piano duel, and during his trademark ranting gibberish, Donald supposedly calls Daffy a "goddamn stubborn [N-word]." First off watch punctuation inside quotation marks - see WP:LQ please. Much more importantly, the only source I could check (Snopes.com) says this is false, and cites relaible sources for this. It is fine to report rumors / controversies like this, but if reliable sources say it is false, then the article has to report that too (see WP:NPOV). I am also not sure that snopes is a reliable source - see WP:RS
 * The second place where there are source issues is The Roger Rabbit dance section. First off, the section header does not seem to follow WP:HEAD (do not repeat all or part of the name of the article if you can avoid it). Second, this seems to be another WP:WEIGHT issue (two sentences on a total of three short cartoons, but a whole section of four sentences on this dance? Most importantly, the sources I was able to check do not in any way back up most of what is in the article. The one source I could not check, an exercise video, hardly seems like the best source on a dance either. Unless much better sources can be found (a math book dedication???) I would cut this to one sentence and merge it with another part of the article (the sources are enough to show the dance existed).
 * In Legal issues why are Wolf's other Roger Rabbit books (post this film) not mentioned?
 * The Themes section is only really one theme, and seems to focus much more on history of LA streetcars than this movie. Are there any scholarly works (books, articles) on the film and its themes?
 * References are in pretty rough shape. Current ref 44 is just a link, 45 and 46 are just bare URLs. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * In general, for a good chance at passing FAC, every i has to be dotted and every t crossed. This article needs a lot of close attention to every detail, not just a copyedit (though that is part of it too).