Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Peer review/Trembling Before G-d

Trembling before G-d
Originally starting improving this to win my head to head at the LGBT WikiProject's Jumpaclass, but now I figure it might be cool to make it FA. What do I need to do? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The 'Awards' section could be turned into prose, instead of its current table format. LuciferMorgan 01:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment If possible, I'd like a little more info on the subjects of the film itself, and some background on different views vs. gay men and gay women. One thing that struck me when I saw it was that none of the women showed their faces or let themselves be identified. I think that should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Kolindigo 19:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly Dev, you've done a good job on this article. Congrats and keep it up! :-)
 * The lead-in could use some work in:
 * It should summarize the entire article. If the rest of the article was removed, it should be able to stand on its own as an article.
 * It needs its sources cited like the rest of the article.
 * [the film] did reasonably at the box office, using dollar amounts would be better here. Let the reader decide how good or bad it did.  It did reasonably at the box office compared to what?  Did it do reasonably well for a gay movie?  For a Jewish movie?
 * The film follows several gay and lesbian Orthodox Jews as they went about their lives and interviewed both rabbis and psychotherapists about Orthodox attitudes towards homosexuality. Because of these attitudes, while DuBowski met hundreds of homosexual Jews over six years, only a handful agreed to be filmed. What was their attitudes?  Where they embarrassed about their beliefs?  Is that what DuBowski theorized the reason they did not want to be interviewed?
 * A section on homosexuality and Orthodox Judaism would be helpful for the reader to understand the movie's subject matter.
 * I would like to see more criticism and praise for the movie.
 * Has the movie actually made an impact on the Jewish and gay communities?
 * There is also a mini-documentary about reactions to the film around the world and what happened to the people who were featured in the documentary. Maybe we could talk briefly about this documentary as well?  -- Ash Lux ( talk 16:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Two more things:
 * Turn "Awards" section into a list instead of a table (I like how Brokeback_Mountain does it).
 * The awards need to be cited. -- Ash Lux ( talk 17:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The awards section in brokeback mountain looks horribly untidy. I prefer the other one. Anyway, I checked out the stuff you mentioned in the lead, and haven't done anything where the information you asked for may be found in the body of the article, but added everything else. A section on background has been added for homosexuality and Judaism. I will add more criticism as I find it as you have suggested, but hasn't the impact on the jewish and gay communities been described in the Reception section? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dev, you've done a great job with this article -- I'm going to have to add it to my Netflix queue now :) The background section was a very good touch, nice job.  You're right on the awards section.  The awards section just looked funny because my screen because my screen is quite large and it took up 30% or so of the width.  From Lead section: "the lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article" and "[the lead] should be carefully sourced as appropriate".  I understand this to mean we should add sources in the lead-in regardless if it is sourced in the other sections.  It makes sense to me anyhow, the reader's shouldn't have to skim the article to find the appropriate citation.  I would still like to know what "the film did reasonably well at the box office" means.  Are we talking millions here?  Putting something like "the film did reasonably well at the box office grossing n dollars" would do just fine.  The article needs someone to go through who is pretty good at fixing up grammar, etc.  I'm not very good at it, but I'll go over it tomorrow with that in mind.  Again, nice work! -- Ash Lux ( talk 05:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added citations to the lead, and the amount grossed. And if you want to see Trembling, you definitely want to see Latter Days. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I gave the lead a bit of a rewrite, attempting to summarize the article a little better and more fully. No doubt I've made some mistakes, so feel free to fix things up or tell me. -- Ash Lux ( talk 23:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. So, any extra points, or shall I move on to FA? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess you liked it, you didn't change much *cheers* :-) The style section bothers me, it is a bit short.  Would it make sense to make it a subsection to Production or Synopsis sections?  Or just expand it?  In any case, I think we could give WP:GA another shot first.  I believe the concerns from the first GA have been resolved.  -- Ash Lux ( talk 01:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already asked WJB to look at it again. Tbh, I usually bypass GA. If you've put in enough work to make it GA, you may as well put in that little bit more to make it FA. The style section was put in because the previous GA nom complained that it didn;t fit anywhere else. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Dev! Just a few quibbles before this goes to FAC: This is a fine article and you'll do well on FAC, methinks! Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a handful of one sentence paragraphs. This will come up in FAC, so either merge the sentences with a surrounding paragraph or expand them.
 * The See Also section is pointless as everything ,except for Keep Not Silent, is already linked within the article. I think Keep Not can be worked in somewhere in the article.
 * Check to make sure that links are only linked once within the article. Stephen Greenberg is linked thrice. Also, check each link and make sure they link to the proper article and not disambig pages.
 * Stephen Greenberg is described as "the first openly gay Orthodox rabbi" twice.
 * There is a lack of images...other than the DVD cover, there isn't anything else. The image of DuBowski has a fair-use rationale for use in this article, yet it is not there. It should be included. Perhaps find a screenshot from one of the interviews in profile as well? Maybe an image of Greenberg?
 * I like the table for the awards!
 * I had images of both but neither WJB nor Angr would let me use them, apparently it's not fair use to just show living people. The links and gay rabbiness have been dealt with. The see also section is always something I personally like to see, even when the links are above, so I want to leave that there. And if you think it's okay to have a fair shot at FA, I'll go do it then. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)