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

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get the film to Featured status due to its relatively short and simple structure compared to my other failed nominations. Having a more seasoned editor to look this over for anything that might be problematic with prose or sources would be extreamly helpful in getting this passed.

Thanks, Paleface Jack (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will take this one up and post my comments by end of day today. On first glance, you have used a variety of high quality sources, so spotting any issues will be a challenge. Matarisvan (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template.

Also, since you are still working towards your first successful FAC, I suggest getting a mentor who can help guide you through the process. Mentors can even comment on the article at this PR. I also suggest that you review articles at WP:FAC to build goodwill amongst the editors and help familiarise yourself with the FA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, apologies for my delayed response. I first went through the sources, and here are my comments:

• Are you open to listing the authors of the first few newspaper articles you have cited in the bibliography? I don't have access to The Wikipedia Library so I couldn't see whether these had author names displayed or not. But I believe you do have access, you should check that out.

In some of those articles, the names of who wrote those pieces were never given.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the title for the Cue article actually 'n.a.'? I can't access the book so can't find out.

There was no title, which is why the "N.A." was applied.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled could be a replacement for n.a., but that is up to you. Matarisvan (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Paleface Jack (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be getting back soon with more comments. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review: Suggest adding alt text for the last image, the promotional poster one. Also I would recommend adding some more images, but that is up to you.

Will add the alt text. Sadly, not a lot of other images are available or needed here.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Paleface Jack, I don't know how I missed this: for the third image, you should remove the custom size setting and change it to default. MOS:IMGSIZE warns against this. Also, the article is well written so finding any issues is tough. I will read through it once again and post my comments if there are any. Matarisvan (talk) 06:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Paleface Jack, checking in, did you miss this? Matarisvan (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completed the change, thought I replied though apparently I did not. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For the redlinked films in the legacy section, do you plan to create articles for them? You could consider adding Wikidata or other language wiki links here for the time being, if the two films have pages there.

I looked around, there are no articles on alternate language wikipedias.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• /had brief airings on television/: perhaps change this to 'was briefly aired on television'? If we know the duration and it is non trivial, say, a month or more, you could consider adding that.

Will do.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would remove the comma after October 2022, though you may prefer to not do so.

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• /only known print of the film residing in Berkeley ... Archives'/: Perhaps change this to 'only known print of the film stored at the Berkeley ... Archives'?

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 'in the Collinsville, California': you could either remove the 'the' or add set at the end if that was what you meant.

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider removing the commas after Thurmond and Warriors? The sentence flows much better that way.

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In the release dates parameter in the infobox, curly parentheses are present both after the access-date parameter and after the ref-end. I would suggest removing the first instance, which I assume is an error, because it results in the reference appearing on the next line.

Results in the entire breaking of the infobox.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, I had done this earlier and it worked fine. Now it breaks as you say. Will post more comments soon. Matarisvan (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odd indeed. Tried doing a couple alterations and the box was still broken, so I reverted it back to the original Paleface Jack (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Paleface Jack, some new minor comments: In the sources, link to Dell Publishing, Warren Hinckle, Jay Robert Nash, Stanley Ralph Ross, Gene D. Phillips, St. Martin's Press, Cue (magazine), Kevin Thomas, Howard Thompson.
• Source #30 seems a little awkward, does WWCFF have to be repeated as both author and publisher? The same goes for #32.
• Also, the ISBN format needs to be consistent, I would suggest you use XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X.
• You seem to have followed the alpabetical order in the sources, but why have Thrower 2007 below Welsh et al. 2010, which would ideally be at the bottom?

That is all from me on the sources and formatting, I will read through the article again and let you know if anything comes up. Matarisvan (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completed and revised all critiques. Some edits to the Book and Periodicals by other users seem to have modified it in a way that I had not envisioned it as. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why change the last name and first name format for the Thomas and Thompson citations, is there any reason for clubbing them? Matarisvan (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Nash & Ross 1986 and Weldon 1985 have ISBN formats whcih do not conform to the other ones. Matarisvan (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to that, it would seem that it might have been a mistake on my part or another editor. It is fixed now. Paleface Jack (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]