Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Peer review/Antitrust (film)

Antitrust (film)
I effectively re-wrote the article, and am pleased with its current state. I'd like to think it could make it to A-class or GA-level, but I haven't worked on a film article to this extent before and would like this WikiProject's input on what I've done and any improvements I can make. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 04:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a good start, but I think that it will require a fair bit of work to bring it to GA status or beyond. Here are some suggestions:

I'd also recommend looking at several of our FA-class articles to get an idea for how a featured article on a film is structured and composed. Look forward to seeing the article come along! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The infobox should not have references - it generally is for straightforward facts. Anything possibly controversial or challengeable probably should be discussed in more detail in the text, with appropriate references.
 * 2) There is no need to cite the film itself when discussing plot information which is easily found by watching the film.
 * 3) The lead should briefly summarize the reception.
 * 4) The plot section should be somewhat more in-depth and include the ending. While it shouldn't be too long (see the project style guidelines for an idea on length), it should probably touch on more of the characters involved, considering the number of cast mentioned.
 * 5) Cast should be limited to the most relevant to the plot and should not be comprehensive. Generally, if the cast member isn't mentioned in the plot, then it may be worth questioning their inclusion.
 * 6) Neither the IMDb nor Yahoo Movies is a reliable source. Furthermore, self-reference to sources within the article text (specifically the cast section) is generally inappropriate.
 * 7) The allusions should be within the Reception section, as they are critical interpretation of the film and not part of the plot itself.
 * 8) Reception could be further fleshed out with more excerpts from noted critics which address many of the commonly-believed strengths and weaknesses of the film.
 * 9) Production needs to go into much further depth, preferably with detail from all major production departments as relevant and sourceable.
 * 10) A Development and/or Pre-Production section probably is also in order with information as to the genesis of the project, what the original concepts were, how and when names were attached to the major positions, any stumbling blocks, stallings, or dropouts, etc.
 * 11) The Cast section should briefly encapsule each character as well as discuss specific real-world context for the actor such as character development, research, or casting information.
 * I'm sorry!, despite watching this page, I still missed your edits. I verily appreciate your input, please don't think I wasn't paying attention.  I'm generally working through your suggestions linearly (and not all at once, Real Life™ and all) and will reply here periodically. Before I'd even seen your reply here, I decided that as long as all the information in the infobox was used and duly cited elsewhere, it didn't need to clutter the infobox itself.  Details such as the music, editor, distributor, and running time aren't well integrable into the prose such as it stands; but in line with the policy on verifiability I want all of that information cited/sourced (not delving into the reliability of the sources under discussion just now).  If not citing those factoids in-line, how would you recommend I be able to associate given information with its reliable source?  An aside, I realize these peer review pages are for these purposes, but why do they take place on a separate page as opposed to the articles' talk pages?  That would keep discussion with the article where it can arguably belong, and to keep the WikiProject appraised either the discussions could be transcluded here, or tagging the article for PR could categorize it in some notifying fashion?  Just curious.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the review is linked within the project banner, so it should be accessible through the talk page. As for the citations on the infobox for those particular fields, I will remind you that WP:V says that reliable sources are only required for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I write effectively challenging myself on everything as I go; if I can't reliably source and cite something, I won't include it. Self-challenging, if you will.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 15:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I slightly rewrote the lede to mirror the structure of the article, and touched on the film's reception; would you look at that? —   pd_THOR  undefined | 15:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)