Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently been listed as a Good Article, after a very useful and constructive review by MuZemike, and I would now like to take the article towards Featured Article. I'm therefore looking for any constructive criticism on the article and what myself and other editors should do to achieve this.

Thanks, Coolug (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: A thoroughly queasy exercise, but interesting none the less. Most of the points shown below are relatively minor:-

Plot

• There's an apparent contradiction here: "The victims manage to escape from the ward, and Katsuro attacks Heiter, but their attempt to escape ultimately fails." They "manage to escape", but "but their attempt to escape ultimately fails."
• We are not told if Heiter's shooting is fatal

Cast

• Some of the information is repetitive, e.g. "...a police officer who is investigating the disappearance of tourists in the area and is ultimately lead to discover Heiter's creation". We know this from the plot summary.

Writing

• I am not sure that "antagonist" is the correct word here. An antogonist is an opponent or adversary; I would describe Heiter more as the film's antihero. (see also lead)
• "...Six citing the German invasion of the Netherlands during World War II and the subsequent Nazi medical experiments". This reads as a direct connection between the invasion of the Netherlands and medical experimentation. Is this the intention? If so, how is the link justified?
• What was the principal language of the film? You say English, German and Japanese in the infobox; does that mean a mixed script, or three different language versions available?

Filming

• "Laser also accidentally kicked Kitamuro (Katsuro) during filming which led to a fight on set between the actors, but he ultimately helped contribute to the tension and anger throughout the scene". The "but" conjunction is wrong here. Also, you need to clarify who "he" is, and elucidate "throughout the scene".

Filming

• "During filming, the production team were denied permission to film the car breakdown scene on the road. However, Six decided to go ahead and film on location as he felt it was perfect for the scene. The rain in the scene was added digitally in post-production." This seems rather inconsequential information, and I'm not sure I follow it. Does "on location" mean that Six defied whoever it was that denied hin permission? My general view is that the information is not important enough to warrant inclusion.

Music and sound effects

• The two words "Nazi" and "inspiration" do not sit well together. I suggest a more neutral word, e.g. "influence".
• "A lot of..." is not very professional-sounding. Perhaps "Many of..."

Effects

• This is the first mention of the "three-dog"; if this is significant it should be covered in the plot synopsis rather than cropping up here.

Theatrical

• Unnecessarily verbose: "with regard to". Try "about".
• One sentence contains the word "release" three times. Try and knock at least one out.
• Capitalization of "Gross"? Should there not be some comparison between revenues and the production costs, which I don't see mentioned anywhere?

Reception

• "Whilst Total Film described the film as a disappointment that "proved itself to be a slow-moving, repetitive affair that has nowhere left to go by the hour mark". This does not constitute a whole sentence. Also, "whilst" is frowned on by WP's prose gurus; drop the word and the sentence becomes grammatical.
• "Sarcastically" sounds like a POV on the nature of the NYT comments. The word should be withdrawn

Accolades

• This section should be redrafted in prose, not bullet-points

Sequel

• Not sure of the future tense in "Tom Six has stated that the first film will get audiences desensitized..." And why is he suddenly "Tom" again?

General

I have not checked out the references, but ref 8 looks like a subscription service and should be noted as such.

I hope that these comments are useful to you. As I am not able to watch individual PR pages, lease use my talkpage if you want to raise matters from this review. It would also help to shift the PR backlog if you were able to review one of the potstanding articles yourself. Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this helpful review. I'll go about making some changes based upon your suggestions. Thanks! cya Coolug (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made changes for each of the points you have made, with the exception of keeping Heiter as an antagonist, as I feel that term is quite appropriate for the moment. Thanks again for your help. If any other editors have any suggestions I'd love to hear them, however, I'm going to be away from wikipedia a fair bit over the next two weeks so might not be able to get to them all that quickly. cya Coolug (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]