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

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

This is the second PR of this article, the first being prior to the GAN reviewed by A person in Georgia. Since then it has gone through some major changes, particularly due to a mentorship review a year ago by David Fuchs. I was just recently able to edit Wikipedia again, and have done some more tweaks, but still am not sure about its suitability for a FAC.

Overall, I just want to make sure the article is free of any "peacocky diction" as Fuchs noted. However I understand it's a long article, so I won't force anyone to review its entirety. Anything is appreciated. Thanks, GeraldWL 04:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For my reference: Thadeus | Schminnte | Chonk | NØ | HAL | HrtFx

Logging that I will be doing a close read this weekend and will leave some comments then. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments have arrived! This was a wonderful read about a film that I had never heard of, but will be tracking down to watch at some point in the near future. A lot of my feedback is closer to nit-picky than helpful, but hopefully you'll get some use out of it.

• I generally dislike putting refs in the middle of sentences when it's not obviously contentious or there isn't a citation at the end of the sentence, but it appears that this is actually the preferred policy per MOS:PF so that's fine.

  Yeah this has been my habit even in the early days of editing, plus I feel like this makes verifying and research navigation easier in some cases.

• Ezekiel sees a canoeist heading to whitewater at Horseshoe Falls - The cited source doesn't look like it specifies Horseshoe Falls, it just says "Niagara Falls."

  I'm also facing a dilemma here so I kinda expected this comment to appear lmao. Niagara Falls is not just one fall, it's three falls, and in the film, the larger, curve-shaped Horseshoe is depicted (the clip is available at the NPR source). However the film never explicitly states it's Horseshoe so I gotta find a secondary source, however they all just say Niagara. I'm not sure how WP deals with this situation typically.

  Looking at MOS:FILMPLOT, it looks like you're fine to just describe it as Horseshoe Falls without a source as long as it's obvious from above. Per the style guide, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. I am certainly not a specialist and I can recognize Horseshoe!

  Thanks for noticing that! I've adjusted it accordingly.

• Then, ultralight aviation was invented. To Fly! then depicts the Saturn IB rocket launch for the Apollo–Soyuz mission - The use of "then" two sentences in a row is a bit repetitive.

  Tweaked, "To Fly! lastly depicts"

• credited to the philosophical awakening caused by the aerial view of the world - Maybe "a philosophical awakening," since you haven't mentioned this before and seems more hypothetical than established.

  Done!

• For the narration blockquote, you probably need to cite the film with a timestamp. I know it's in the summary section but it's a hefty block of text apparently lifted from the film word-for-word.

  Should I? MOS:FILMPLOT only requires secondary source for claims not said in the film, and for clarification in cases of complicated stories.

  My only concern would be copyright but you're probably fine to leave it in - It's such an easy fix if anybody at FAC ends up having concerns.

• Reference 8 in the background section is an almost 40-page section of the book and is used to support multiple paragraphs worth of text. Can we be more specific with what pages of the book support what specific claims, or is it truly that spread out?

  I'll try to reopen the book when I'm free and see if using Template:Rp is possible.

  Update: I'm beginning to skim through this book slowly!

• giant-screen filmmaker Francis Thompson - I'm sure this is true but is there a source that explicitly describes him as specializing in "giant-screen" films? I'd be inclined to let it slide if his own article described him as this but I don't see that there either.

  Similar to above, but in this case slightly expanding his article.

• With a US$590,000 fund from the Continental Oil Company - What source is this from? If you're going to have a note saying "this other source got it wrong" it would be good to have the source with the correct number right there as well. I actually see that ref 23 (Inspire Friday) has this information, it's just way down in the article.

  I adjusted the refs in that sentence accordingly.

• Principal photography occurred throughout 1975 and lasted 400 days, as per the schedule - Is "as per the schedule" necessary here?

  I think so-- I wrote that to highlight how they finished it on schedule, which doesn't sound trivial.

  I guess my assumption as a casual reader is that most things finish on schedule, but you know more about film than me!

• and had "basic" specifications, dismaying the filmmakers - I don't see "basic" being used to describe the specifications in the cited article.

  Changed per source to crude.

• because it could not be repeated, unlike the other scenes, despite their equal level of difficulty - I think you can just say "could not be repeated."
• The camera was found wet and jammed, and they immediately cleaned it for around three hours. Eventually, the recording was recovered. - Maybe "and the crew spent three hours cleaning it to recover the recording"?
• Film critic Daniel Eagan said most of the views depicted in its opening sequence is "stately, processional - I think "is" should be "are"
• The film generally shies away from depicting the Industrial Revolution's effects on the US in favor of the lands' authentic nature. - Maybe "in favor of displaying untouched nature"?

  Done on all four above points! :)

• I think the reception section was very well done! Looking at David Fuch's prior comments it seems like that was where the "peacocky diction" was, but I think you did a good job separating it out and clearly attributing some of the more flowerly language to specific reviews and critics.

  Thanks!! Granted, David's comments came when it was kind of all over the place, but I managed to tidy it up using WP:RECEPTION.

• I did not know what vertiginous or desultory meant and had to look them up - Are there synonyms that could be used instead?

  I changed the latter to superficial, but vertiginous is a direct adjective from vertigo, I googled synonyms and they're pretty informal (woozing, reeling, etc..)

• Contemporary critics were more positive - This is confusing on two levels, because you've just described a lot of positive reviews and because "contemporary" could mean reviews at the time of release or modern reviews.

  This part abt the reception is pretty misleading as you said-- I actually found two negative reviews last night, and have adjusted the subsection's two big paragraphs to accomodate them.

Overall, it's a well-written, engaging article and I think will do fine at FAC :). Best of luck! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 00:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, ThadeusOfNazereth! I've responded to each of your comments, feel to look and reply to any of 'em. I streamed the film, but if you happen to go to DC and stop by Udvar-Hazy you should watch this. I plan to get this to FAC when everything's complete; I just posted on WP:RX to see if I can complete the accolades section, which looks pretty sad right now. {P.S. being nitpicky I find can be rewarding in reviews, so don't worry on that :D}. GeraldWL 05:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Sorry, I didn't see your ping! Left a couple replies but I have a feeling they're more personal preference than anything else. I used to live in DC and still have family in the area so I'm up there pretty regularly - I will let you know when I end up seeing it! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 00:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, fascinating article you have here! I thought I'd try and jot down a few thoughts here in appreciation of the helpful laundry-list of fixes you gave at my current FAC. Below are some thoughts, listed in section order. For now, I have comments for the lede and notes + references, but I will provide other comments soon. If you think I'm being overly harsh, please tell me. All the best! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping by, Schminnte! I responded to all your current comments, and I'd love to see your other thoughts, but no rush. And thanks for the compliment, this piece is definitely the most serious I've been thru my editing timeline :) GeraldWL 04:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It was the premiere film of the giant-screen IMAX theater for the National Air and Space Museum's main building, which opened to celebrate the United States Bicentennial. – is "main building" needed here? I suspect the NASM's Lockheed Martin theater would not be confused with the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center's Airbus IMAX Theater unless specified. If this was dropped a more natural sentence could be constructed, for example: "It was the premiere film of the National Air and Space Museum's giant-screen IMAX theater, which opened to celebrate the United States Bicentennial." This would also make it the same as §Release#NASM, which doesn't mention the main building specifically.
• The film [...] by Thomas McGrath. The film... – I feel like this repetitive could be dropped or better, the sentences somehow merged.

  Done-- I just realized the lead has a repetition of "film", so I tweaked the paragraph; I agree with you too, the main building doesn't seem necessary.

• The film was edited by MacGillivray and Freeman while the score was composed by Bernardo Segall. – is "while" the correct word were? I feel like there isn't a juxtaposition to be highlighted, so maybe change to something like "The film was edited by MacGillivray and Freeman, and featured a score composed by Bernardo Segall".

  Looking at Oxford, while can be defined as juxtaposition but also "whereas (indicating a contrast)", so I think it still fits? But I can change it if you think it doesn't-- keep in mind I'm an ESL so I could be wrong.

  My point is that there isn't really a contrast between people who worked on the film. In my opinion, "and" would make more sense here - S

  I used your suggestion, looks great!

• To Fly! was released on July 1, 1976 and sponsored by Conoco, who funded the film. – I don't think "who funded the film" is needed unless you are going to specify the amount of funding.

  I think it does? Certainly the reason it's sponsored by Conoco is due to it being the project's benefactor since its pre-production. I don't think moving it to paragraph 2 (will add repetition of "Conoco") or extending paragraph 3 with that (deviates from the main topic of Release) will help.

  I see your point: is there any way you can better rephrase it then? The sentence feels a little clunky. - S

  I moved the Conoco thing to the production, and replaced this sentence with the distributor.

  I feel this choice fixes the root problem, great - S

• The film was later released in other formats too – drop "too" for conciseness.

  Tweaked-- removed too, but I also changed later to also. Since the film's 90% exhibition is in IMAX, it makes sense to add an also. I think so.

  This seems fine. - S

• Several sources mis-stated the running time by a few minutes – I've checked Merriam-Webster, and it gives the spelling of "misstate"

  Thanks for catching that-- didn't know where that was from but pretty sure it came out of GAN. Tweaked!

• Would like to see page numbers on references 6, 35, : 50+ pages is a large span for verifying content.
• Reference 8 is given page numbers in some cases but not others. Almost 40 pages in a rather large span to expect someone to scour through.

  Thanks for bringing up the other refs! I'm currently in the process of specifying pages for ref 8 (it's all done in Background section). For ref 6 and 36, I accessed it via ProQuest and only used the full text version instead of the PDF version-- is it okay if I just ditch the pages with that in mind?

  I would recommend that you add the pages if at all possible: FAC may be quite strict about this. - S

  Got it, I'll look into this as well.

• What makes reference 59 a reliable source? Unless there is a very good reason, blogs will not be accepted at FAC.
• Ditto above with references 70 and 71.

  I'll answer the reliability questions, plus ref 100 (note: I just added a new ref so its now refs 60, 71, 72).

  GreatAmericaParks.com is operated by Steven W Wilson, who is the author of a book about the parks published by Arcadia Publishing, he is well-known for his collection of the parks archival media.

  Mark R. Hasan is the author of KQEK.com, but outside of that he's also a filmmaker and a journalist in several publications, like Rue Morgue, Film Score Monthly, and Canadian Screenwriter. Furthermore, he has also led a lecture on film at a horror museum. KQEK is also the only site I can find in which the film's Betamax and home media release date is stated, as evident by his scan of the backcover, so I think it's reliable and worthy.

  Ross Anthony is a Rotten Tomatoes-certified critic who used to be a critic for Pasadena Weekly. Like KQEK.com, he too has done various interviews with people in the film industry, attending press conferences.

  I'm happy with these references for now, but be wary that FAC source reviewers can be quite picky about what constitutes a "high-quality" reliable source. - S

  Definitely my biggest worry right now, but I have reviewed each sources present and have prepped with the reasonings. Prior to your arrival I actually removed two sources which I find unacceptable (a database and a self-published blog).

I've realised that this now messes up the order of my comments, but that can't be avoided. Below are all my remaining comments based on the main prose, with some miscelanea that I missed on my first read through. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the observations, Schminnte! I've responded to each comments (and the ones above too). GeraldWL 04:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: No new comments this time, just some replies. I feel that I've had my say and can't spot anything else that needs correction. Good work and thanks for your prompt responses! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work here. It's a good read and all my concerns have been addressed. Please mention me when you take it to FAC! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Fictional hot air balloonist Ezekiel, after reciting a zestful quatrain declaring himself a pioneer, ascends on a voyage around New England. – suggest a rephrase, maybe "After reciting a zestful quatrain declaring himself a pioneer, a fictional hot air balloonist named Ezekiel ascends on a voyage around New England." This has a nicer flow I feel.

  Done!

• Its advent is described as "like the opening of a new eye" – by who? If it is Ezekiel I feel that this could be specified.

  It's by the narrator (Ezekiel only serves as entertainment in the opening), tweaked.

• This also later inspired the creation of skyscrapers. – is "also" needed here?

  I removed that in favor of summarizing the narration "We can truly see these cities only with that other eye we opened not so long ago. Now the older human scale disappears." Looking back, the narration wasn't really saying it inspired skyscrapers, just that skyscrapers look like they're trying to reach for the sky much like flight, trivial stuff.

• Overall this is nicely written, good stuff.

  Thanks!

• ... though they were all rejected., – misplaced punctuation, or is this here for a reason?

  I thought this part doesn't require a punctuation? There's already a comma after "the first titled "The Beautiful Mysteries of Flight"".

  I'm referring to the comma after the full stop - S

  Ah sorry, didn't see that one! Removed.

• Meanwhile a year later... – is meanwhile needed?

  Removed.

• ...he became convinced that an IMAX theater at the NASM would provide a sense of realism to visitors, and accepted the idea. – suggest removing comma.

  Done.

• ...who had previously made surf and giant-screen films with experimental editing, and shot aerials for Jonathan Livingston Seagull (1973) and The Towering Inferno (1974). – ditto above.

  I think the separation is needed to contrast between "they made these films..." and "they shot these films..." Plus there are like three ands here.

  Fair enough - S

• He and Freeman storyboarded it with John Divers at their Laguna Beach, California office. – "Laguna Beach, California, office"

  Done

• Through filmmaker Randal Kleiser whom he knew from his friend Basil Poledouris, MacGillivray took classes with actress Nina Foch to master in directing his cast. – a comma before whom would be warranted here.

  Done

• Filming paused eight weeks (2.5 months) – is 2.5 months needed here? If you feel it is, it should probably be changed to "two and a half" for consistency.

  Done.

• Ditto above for the other "2.5 months" in the sentence.

  Done.

• The illusion of pilots "flying"... – I don't think quotes are needed since it is specified that this is an illusion.

  Done.

• I think the second occurrence of "Saturn IB" should be linked. After all, it is 1800 words away from the first link.

  Linked

• ...used for 2001 – I assume you are referring to 2001: A Space Odyssey: I think the film's full name should be given here.

  Done

• "white board" or "whiteboard"?

  Whiteboards are glossy boards used for markings. In this case it's merely a large board in white.

  Ok, just checking :) - S

• the scene smash dissolves and the... – can this be rephrased to move the links apart?

  I added a hyphen if that's okay.

  seems good to me, as long as there is some separation - S

• The 35 mm opening where Ezekiel is still ... which the film calls "like the opening of a new eye" – this sentence should be split for readability.

  Done.

  unfortunately in doing this, a repetitive has been created. Can this be removed? - S

  Done and tweaked abit too.

• MacGillivray chose the film's score to be composed and conducted by Bernardo Segall, and performed by a 49-piece symphony orchestra at the Burbank Studios which he considered "the most professional and experienced" in California that he could find. – this is another sentence that is quite long.

  Separated between Segall and orchestra

• ...three of the six channels on the 35 mm sound follower – as the 35 mm sound follower is not previously mentioned, the sentence makes more sense as "...on a 35 mm sound follower".

  Done.

• It was also viewed as a nationalist film, linking the American quest for national identity to the development of aviation through metanarratives like the linear, westward journey of Americans, though its omniscient visual rhetoric is most distinct in the space sequence – another very long sentence.

  Separated to two sentences.

• The Airbus IMAX Theater of the NASM's annex, the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, has also been screening To Fly!. – do we know since when?

  Not sure. Griffiths did mention Airbus IMAX though only said that "As I'm writing this, it's also playing there."

  For shame. That's fine. - S

• Merriam-Webster gives the spelling of rescreened instead of re-screened.

  Done.

• Over 24 countries have screened it, including Germany, Japan, Mexico, and Indonesia (Keong Emas IMAX Theater, Jakarta). – I feel this sentence makes more sense as part of the paragraph immediately after.

  Done

• Over one million people watched it during its first year at the NASM with approximately 80% of its 485 seats occupied. – comma could be inserted after NASM.
• three-and-a-half should not be hyphenated unless used as an adjective.

  Done on both points

• ...with guides like those by BioScience and the Michelin Green Guide – Michelin Green Guide is a guide itself, not a publisher.

  Adjusted

• ...similar to other IMAX films that is said to overexploit immersion as a gimmick. – that "are" said to.

  Done

• The following table only lists the ones mentioned at the MFF website, until other sources are available. – I feel like the second part of this sentence verges on "talk in articles".

  I'm still working on this part too. I posted on WP:RX a request to access sources at Hagley Library, which stores a document on the awards on by To Fly, which I can't access since I'm on the other side of the world. I'm not sure how to put that disclaimer without going into that meta territory.

  I feel an invisible comment or talk page comment would be better - S

  Done.

• I feel Wilkman's full name can be given due to the distance between his name's occurrences in prose.

  Done.

• Francis Thompson is linked twice in the lede.

  Removed.

• In §See also, is there any reason to use "Denver & Rio Grande Railroad" instead of the styling used by the Wikipedia article (Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad)?

  That is the naming used in the film

  This is acceptable then - S

• Image in §Production#Background: does this need a full stop? I feel that the sentence joined by semicolon is a full sentence, so needs a full stop.

  Done

• Image in §Release#Home media: "Comparison between the 1.33:1 (blue), 1.44:1 (light gray), and 1.78:1 aspect ratios (the entire frame)" – is this blue? On my screen I'm not so sure. Dark blue might be better here.

  Added

• External links looks good

Will review soon- just one thing I see off the bat, why is the image of Nolan showing half his face? The image on his own article is (IMO) just fine. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I chose that specific Nolan pict because that was taken in 2008 when The Dark Knight premiered, which I think would be relevant to the prose. I didn't really take any problems with it covering the left eye, since we can still see his overall look, but if you insist I'll replace it tomorrow. GeraldWL 05:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• adding humor and various scenes intended to jolt IMAX audiences. - the humor was meant to jolt audiences?

  Must've been an error during the PR reviews above. Resolved.

• Creation of the ending space sequence, featuring the first IMAX rocket launch scene, was made with various experiments. "Creation of" introduces the subject, but you continue with "was made". Might just be confusing myself, but I think it'd be better as "The ending space sequence, featuring the first IMAX rocket launch scene, was made with various experiments." Also, "verious experiments" is vague- elaborate

  Tweaked-- experimental special effects.

• It was deemed significant for increasing the number of IMAX theaters and introducing people to the nascent format, with various intense reactions observed among audiences, thus included in the National Film Registry and IMAX Hall of Fame. - missing something after "thus"- "...among audiences, thus causing it to be included in the National Film Registry..."

  I tweaked it to "and was thus"-- is that grammatically correct?

• Quotes anywhere, including in the summary, need refs

  Per my cmt on Schminnte's review, "MOS:FILMPLOT only requires secondary source for claims not said in the film, and for clarification in cases of complicated stories." The quote is explicitly said, and by default the summary's citation is the film, so I'm not sure it's needed-- I can cite the VHS link or the steaming link, but it's too self-explanatory.

• Much of the summary just seems to be discussing the history of aviation rather than following the film. Unless this is all explicitly stated in the film, it needs citations

  The film does explicitly discusses the history of aviation, via its narration. I put citations for the some of the specific locations and dates which are not identified onscreen.

• Not a concern, just a comment: the use of mooted here is excellent, truly an undervalued word- wonderful vocabulary choice!

  Thank you! I really do enjoy putting rare vocabulary-- really good learning resource as an ESL.

• While Ferguson believed this would enhance the museum, Collins had not seen an IMAX film and initially rejected the proposal. However, when he visited Expo '74, - "he" is unclear in the second sentence because two people were mentioned in the previous sentence

  Added Collins

• To Fly!'s opening scene is given comedic moments so audiences would realize the film is not a dry historical drama. - attribute this fact to MacGillivray so that it's not in wikivoice

  Done

• The character was based upon a balloonist who in 1790 apparently made flights over New England while reciting self-written poems, purportedly to impress young women - does this balloonist have a name? If so, an article?

  Nope, the source didn't specify who it was. Initially I put Jean Pierre Blanchard since he had a record of a 1793 New England flight, but that's three years later and he never flirted with women using poems. Also I don't want to go into OR territory.

• , as per the schedule. - cut

  Also clarified in the above PR, I think it's important to state that it ended on time.

• Filming paused eight weeks (two and a half months) in during June - cut two and a half months, it's not that hard to calculate eight weeks; also, "in during June"? How is it during June if it's for two months?

  Tweaked. I'm trying to convey that filming began in early 1975, and ended late 1975, with a pause in June (2.5 months after first shooting day) to shoot another movie.

• with a 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. - see WP:TIME

  I added nbsp if that's what you mean.

• and felt "crude" - according to whom?

  Tweaked-- the filmmakers

• Furthermore, they were worried - who's they? The filmmakers? The To Fly! team?

  Yep. I think it should be clear since it has already been attributed a sentence ago.

• Many shots in the film were time-consuming - time-consuming as in they took a long time to make, or had a long duration?

  Tweaked-- to make

• Many shots in the film were time-consuming: a 35-second shot of the Blue Angels flying over the Colorado River and Yuma Desert took over four months to choreograph. Camera mounts were designed by the United States Navy for a McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II piloted by Kevin O'Mara used to film the shot. Nelson Tyler spent two months developing two mounts for the camera helicopters to film front and side shots, providing smoothness as the smallest vibrations would be noticeable on IMAX. The helicopters were piloted by George Nolan, Chuck Phillips, and Adrian Brooks. Mounts were also made by Boeing for the Boeing 747; they used its first prototype.[c] - why is this whole para attributed to six references in the efn? Can the refs not be distributed to individual facts? The same case for last paragraph of Filming.

  The whole para is really a combination of various sources and it juggles back and forth between them. I think it'd be unecessary to cite one ref 3-4 times within close proximity in the same paragraph. The Dark Knight did the same refbundles (with a more extreme rate) so I think this should be just fine.

• The balloon was decorated with 13 American flags, the number of states in the US during the period - what period?

  Clarified-- 1831.

• They filmed all these on 16 mm first to see if they could be done on IMAX - using they twice to refer to different things is a bit confusing

  Second "they" is now "it".

More later, a very interesting read so far! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments so far, MyCatIsAChonk! I've done some of your suggestions with some comments. GeraldWL 04:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More:

• Pacing is medium so audiences - this reads odd; perhaps, "The pacing of the shots was designed to allow audiences..."

  Done.

• Wl symphony orchestra

  Done.

• which spans more than 8,000 feet - present tense? I think past tense makes more sense, since the rest of the sentence is in past

  Done

• The Smithsonian said that its theme - "its" could be referring to the Smithsonian itself; use the films name

  Done.

• Film author Alison Griffiths agrees - agreed

  Done.

• The first press announcements of To Fly! were issued on May 16, 1976,[46] and on June 24, the film was previewed - a conjunction is needed before "the film was previewed"

  I tweaked the sentence, if that's fixes it.

• Footnote g/h: inflation conversions need citations, and there's a missing $ sign in g

  Fixed latter. Though per Template:Inflation, it's only "a good practice" to cite them, and articles like the Raffles Place MRT don't cite them too.

• The Airbus IMAX Theater of the NASM's annex, the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, has also been screening To Fly!.[56] - has? Is it still running?

  Yep! Which is why I linked the Smithsonian site.

• Museums built IMAX theaters intrigued by the film - odd connection of these two statements, rephrase: "Museums built IMAX theaters as a result of demand for the film..." or the sort

  Did a different tweak, since sources state that it was museum officials who were interested in IMAX after seeing To Fly!, not necessarily the general people.

• in Bradford, England - extend the wl to England: Bradford, England

  Done.

More later MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Up to 1982, around 100 million - is this saying that it had 100 mil from 1976 to 1982? if so, I think "By 1982" would sound better; same for any other "up to"s in the section
• As of 1991, over 100 million people have viewed To Fly! at schools and on television - if it's "as of", update it with modern data; otherwise, say "By 1991, over..."
• Museums like the NASM and NMPFT used early earnings of the film to underwrite expenses,[81] maintain theaters, and/or funding IMAX films - funding? Use "fund" to align with the tense of the rest of the sentence

  Done all three above.

• Others, however, screamed in jolt - to my knowledge, jolt can't be used as an adjective (or adverb? whatever this context is); "jolted the audience, eliciting some screams" would work, or otherwise using jolt as a verb

  According to Oxford, jolt is also a noun for "a surprise or shock, especially of an unpleasant kind and often manifested physically". It gave an example: "that information gave her a severe jolt".

  Nvm lol I changed it to fright, adds new vocabulary too rather than repeating "jolt"

• described as dynamic yet on an "impossibly simple craft." - period should go outside of quote marks, per MOS:QINQ

  Done

• Responding to the film's popularity, Bill McCabe of the DuPont Aerospace Enterprise said because humans - insert "that" before because

  Done

• though with less interest among field trip groups than other IMAX documentaries - I'm a bit confused by this- are the educators expressing less interest in other films, or are the field trip groups?

  The educators said that although To Fly is an educator's favorite, it isn't their first consideration when organizing field trips to IMAX theaters. They acknowledged it being a good field trip material, but there are better options.

• As of 1992, To Fly! had - "By 1992, To Fly! had..."

  Done

• as one of the top reasons people visited Washington - use the full city name: Washington, D.C.

  Done

That's all the comments I have for this article- very nice work, and a fascinating read! Let me know when you take it to FAC! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk, thanks for your helpful comments, definitely noticed many things I didn't even with my thousandth read of this article! I have done all your comments with several replies, if you wish to check 'em. I will be sure to notify should I put it in FAC! GeraldWL 04:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave some comments here. My current FAC for a longer-than-usual article has failed to gain traction and I was hoping you could pleease take a look at it, GWL.--NØ 19:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Thematically, it explores the search for national identity through the country's westward expansion, as well as humanity's relationship with aviation." - I believe the second comma is unnecessary

  Truee. Removed.

• "It was initially scheduled to screen only for the Bicentennial, but due to public demand was kept indefinitely" - Not that there is anything necessarily wrong with this sentence but out of personal preference I would change it to "It was initially scheduled to screen only for the bicentennial, but due to public demand, it was kept indefinitely."

  Yeah I can see why, although I'd say I'm keeping it as it is. Feels kinda wordy for me.

• Avoid using words like "thus", "However", etc.

  I tried editing to leave us with only 5 thus-ses and 2 however-s, but can't seem to deal with the remaining.

• Apologies for making multiple comments about commas, but the comma in "Then, ultralight aviation was invented" is probably unnecessary too.

  Oh please don't apologise! Though I'd say it's necessary: "Then ultralight aviation was invented" would sound kinda weird.

• I'm seeing duplinks pointing to Backlighting (lighting design), Saturn IB, The Washington Post, and The New York Times. I believe these are allowed now but I still like to point them out to nominators in case they are unintentional.

  The WP and NYT duplinks are only because of the quoteboxes so it must be no problem. IB's duplink is MCIAC's suggestion since the first link is far far away. Removed backlit duplink.

Other than that, there are no problems I can see with the prose itself. I am probably not fit to comment on comprehensiveness due to low familiarity with the subject matter, but after the solid amount of feedback from other users there hopefully shouldn't be any problems there.--NØ 19:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, MaranoFan! I've commented on all points and hopefully that solidifies further this article's preparedness for FAC. I'll soon comment on your FAC. GeraldWL 04:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this appears to be in good shape for FAC to me.--NØ 19:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a huge fan of the technological optimism of the 20th century—the kind of stuff instilled in Epcot before Disney ruined it—so I'm happy to review this. Comments soon. ~ HAL333 13:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by, HAL! Would love to hear your perspective on this. And fun fact-- the director of this film made an Epcot film called Wonders of China! GeraldWL 07:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder it seemed familiar. ~ HAL333 21:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Here's what I got:

• It was deemed significant for increasing the number of IMAX theaters seems like roundabout wording and I'm not fond of "deemed significant"... Maybe change to something along the lines of "The film helped popularize the IMAX format and led to an increase in the number..."
• cast seems like the wrong word. Maybe "solidified"
• A comma is needed before and the American territory as it is followed by an independent clause.
• I would change though it only accelerated since the 1960s to "though this only accelerated in the 1960s"
• I would change "mooted" to "raised", and shortly thereafter "which argues" --> "which argued"
• but this was later discarded --> "but this was discarded" - later is redundant
• though they were all rejected --> "though all were rejected"
• commoly referred as --> "commonly referred to as"
• they set the deadline for 1976 - what deadline?
• Wording in did not want the film to be too history-oriented and be more fun is unclear
• around 30 suggestions, around 20 is repetitive
• so audiences would realize the film is not a dry historical drama - wording is off
• occurred throughout 1975 and lasted five months, as per the schedule --> to something like "occurred over five months in 1975"
• the most fun that he and Freeman worked on throughout their 11 years of partnership is somewhat strangely worded.
• Oftentimes they would film together -- > "They often filmed together", more concise per WP:WOULDCHUCK
• dismaying them who wanted To Fly! to be innovative is poorly worded.
• There are a lot more of these phrasing issues...

Overall, the comprehensiveness looks great, and the sourcing looks great. The only issue is the prose. I think it needs to go through the guild. After that, I would be able to support it at FAC. ~ HAL333 21:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the comments! Most of them I have applied to the article (with a few changes), although I did not change mooted since it was the result of GOCE, and judging by other reviewers' comments, mooted seems to be a suitable word. I'll take your notes and see what I can do to improve the prose (you're not the first to mention its possible peacockiness). Thanks again! GeraldWL 03:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

started at post-production

• "The pacing of the shots was designed to allow audiences to explore the entirety of the shots" - wordy/repetitive
• "After learning an inconsiderately-placed multi-image scene would create a confusing experience for audiences" - from who/why?
• I see some places where active voice can be used rather than passive voice ie "For the sound effects, Sam Shaw was the editor while Ray West and Jack Woltz were mixers" - Sam Shaw edited the sound effects while Ray West and Jack Woltz mixed them
• "just to exploit" - "solely to exploit" or "to exploit" is more encyclopedic
• the last sentence of the post-prouction section has dashes, commas, semi colons - a little overwhelming

  Done, plus reworded the "confusing experience" sentence.

• quote boxes for one anlysis/statement is generally seen as undue weight/POV when its from someone not linked to the film

  I wouldn't remove this for now. I've seen some FAs do the same thing, quoting reviews or analysis of a certain work that illustrates the overarching analysis well, and I think NYT's review summarizes well regarding the nationalistic, sanitized vibe of the film.

• "noted certain scenes reference classic films" - "noted" and possibly "classic" are subjective

  I changed noted to opined, but all three films have been widely regarded as classics.

• This is Cinerama - This Is Cinerama - verbs are capitalized (Is is from be)
• I am struggling to identify a cohesive theme to the second "themes and style" paragraph, seems to need a topic sentence or revision
• why is the production company's name first mentioned in the release section?

  Done the "Is" problem. I will try and see what I can do to make the themes prose more engaging (it's the most fun section to work on so I'm happy with your comment). As for the prod. company, it is more relevant here I feel, and readers don't lose any information, since it only consists of the duo's last names.

• "A Pachelbel's Canon rendition was played as an overture, a decision praised as memorable, religiously experiential, and meaningful. Setting against the film, the music can be interpreted as being about humanity's quest to fly. The film was also partially credited for the music's popularity, though more regard was put on Ordinary People (1980)." - this is venturing into wikivoice territory; there needs to be in-text attribution or some more context for sentences regarding praise and cultural impact
• "a decision praised as memorable, religiously experiential, and meaningful" - the decision was religiously experiental?

  I trimmed the part about "the music is about flight too", since it's not really an appropriate place to talk about that. I attributed WP for the music popularity, and reworded the sentence to make the religiously experiential part make sense.

• "big demand" - high demand

  Done.

• September 9, 1976, activity written after 2019 film festival in the same paragraph? the time shifts are jarring

  Intendedly the paragraph shifts between topics; first it mentions the overall international scope of the film, then the festivals, and then the non-IMAX release. I tweaked the sentence to what I feel is less jarring, but I'll see if there needs more work.

• KQEK cites Imdb I dont think that is a high quality source

  I've discussed KQEK and the other sources above, but to summarize, KQEK is written by a former film journalist in several publications. Citing IMDb I don't think merits a disregard for the source, since many RS mentions IMDb too.

• "three and a half of NASM visitors" - three and a half of what?

  I removed the of if that's the problem.

• "100 million audiences" - 100 million separate showings?
• "By 1991" - this should not come after the sentence "From 2000 to 2012"

  For the first point, yes they are culumative of separate showings; it's common practice in film articles to do that. I moved the 1991 part to before the CBS quote.

• "The overall sequence was described as intimate and stellar, and the ending as uplifting" / "The film's duality of vintage and contemporary settings were credited for its nostalgic weight." etc. - by who? one citation to one review should not be nearly comfortable enough to make statements in wikivoice.
• To Fly!'s impressiveness is said to be debatable for many modern first-time viewers" - said by whom? this is quite vague

  I gave attr to both sentences, and the last just needs moving the attribution.

• newsapperarchive articles can be clipped so a subscription is not required, I strongly encourage this

  Yeah I am looking for ways to do this. I'm unable to access mine for... reasons, so I'll probably look for people with a sub.

• "To whom To Fly! is his first, and among his most memorable, childhood IMAX films" - who cares

  IMO, it is quite significant that an important figure in NASA found the film a favorite and an inspiration to his career. I would go so far as to compare it with a critics' top ten films.

• there can be crisper topic sentences for paragraphs in places

The article is certainly comphrensive, but personally I feel at times there is too much info and I would maybe cut some non-vital statistics or facts. Congrats and good luck with the article. Best, Heartfox (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox, thanks for this insightful review of the article; thank god I didn't close this prematurely! I've done some of the changes with some comments above. For some of the more overall comments, I'll see how I can deal with that. GeraldWL 04:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the late review which I forgot I promised. This article looks very comprehensive and refined so I will see what I can find. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Jim Freeman of MacGillivray Freeman Films, who wrote the story with Francis Thompson, Robert M. Young, and Arthur Zegart." and "narration" I lack extensive background knowledge about the narrative in docdrama themes but who actually wrote the story?

My bad, thought they were the same thing. hhee...

• "It premiered at the giant-screen IMAX theater of the National Air and Space Museum, which opened to celebrate the United States Bicentennial." Shouldn't this be at the third par?
• "It was finished on schedule in two years, with a low US$590,000 fund from Conoco." Don't think this is necessary
• "released to critical acclaim" must be removed per MOS:ACCLAIMED
• "It also set MacGillivray as a major IMAX filmmaker." Unnecessary detail
• The production section looks good to me, although I lack the expertise to explore it in-depth
• Themes and style can probably be renamed Thematic analysis
• The Themes section can be paraphrased from all these quotes to achieve a clearer and more concise structure
• As Manifest Destiny seemed to be a major theme here, maybe you can delve deeper into that aspect, such as including specific scenes that truly captured the essence, etc. I am not sure if there are sufficient sources to allow for such expansion. A quick Google Scholar search shows nothing. I am inclined that there is more information available. If not, and since it is considerably short, maybe you can shove it in the post-release section similar to FA master Blake's John Wick (film)
• "To Fly! was well-received by many film critics" is saying is well-received by many but is only cited by only one source
• Suggest transforming the #Critical_response layout into formats like John Wick (film)#Critical response, Terminator 2: Judgment Day#Critical response, and The Dark Knight#Critical_response.
• Retrospectively, "The film was edited by MacGillivray and Freeman, and features a score composed by Bernardo Segall. It was finished on schedule in two years, with a low US$590,000 fund from Conoco." can be removed as its unnecessary details. This can be replaced with more insights into the filming aspects.
• Also would love to see an extensive look and elaboration of the special effects in "The ending space sequence, featuring the first IMAX rocket launch scene, was made with various experimental special effects."

I understand this is very vague but all I am suggesting is converting it into a further examination of the production aspects including the aviation process, technology, etc. Drawing from personal experience, a lot of the FA films I come across dont mention their editor, their budget, and that they finished on-schedule. It also set MacGillivray as a major IMAX filmmaker is unnecessary because it did directly not contribute to the legacy of this film, but rather empathized his personal image. Other areas of improvement include paraphrasing of the quotes in the Themes section for a better flow. I understand some sources can be scarce, but I am impressed by your ability to find reliable sources for a film as old as 1976. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, thanks again for dropping comments! I will be only active the next week, but I've implemented your point 4 for now. A lot of FA films do mention editing, budget, and on-schedules in their leads so that mustn't be a huge problem. MacGillivray's legacy is important to note because he is the biggest IMAX filmmaker, more so than the big names like Nolan or even the founder. The avion and techno details I feel are too jargony that they won't be points of interest in the lead. I will for sure be looking into fixing the themes section, especially with many editors now pointing it out. I'll note you when I've looked into them all. GeraldWL 08:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]