Wikipedia:Peer review/RoboCop/archive1

RoboCop

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs a lot of work. Lots of unreferenced sections. Thanks, Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are some article that can be useful for citations.

• How A Mime Saved Paul Verhoeven’s ROBOCOP
• The Making Of RoboCop – Extended Cut

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments Hello, peer review isn't really designed to get other people to go off and do research on your behalf, it's really there to give comments on existing content. I'll do a brief review, but suggest you research for those additional citations yourself.

• Lead could use a bit of expansion for an article of this size (see WP:LEAD).
• "Rick Baker" is a dab link.
• Don't think you really need to link "police force".
• "program helmed by middle-ranking executive Bob Morton (Miguel Ferrer), named "RoboCop"." put the name of the program before "helmed by..."
• "but OCP takes his body and uses it to create the first RoboCop." very brief overview of quite a few scenes where they switch him on and feed him etc.
• "as Bixby Snyder (TV comedian)" for consistency in this list, shouldn't this be "television comedian Bixby Snyder"?
• "Robocop" be consistent with the capitalisation in this article.
• " a Robot Cop." why is any of that capitalised?
• As the tag says, this section needs more refs.
• ""fascism for liberals" - a politically" en-dash needed, not hyphen.
• "[citation needed]. " needs fixing.
• I don't see fair use rationale for the use of File:6000SUX.jpg in this exact article.
• File:Robocop the melting man.jpg does not have a fair use rationale for inclusion in this article.
• "The make-up effects in a scene from RoboCop (1987)," this caption doesn't need the year of RoboCop.
• FWIW "6000 SUX advertisement." doesn't need a full stop.
• Don't mix reference date formats.
• Make sure refs are formatted correctly (e.g. ref 6 is a bare URL).
• Things like The New York Times should be in italics because they are published works.
• IMDB isn't considered a reliable source.
• Ref 36 needs accessdate, publisher, publication date etc where possible. Apply this comment to all refs.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have started to implement some of your suggestions. I have removed the two images you've cited. Should they be outright deleted? The 6000 SUX picture is not used on any other article, and I can not think of any other article it could be relevant for. And the Melting man image is also used in The Incredible Melting Man article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Haven't had a look through the article yet, but here is an interview with Miguel Ferrer that might prove useful for expanding it a little. GRAPPLE X 22:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Reviewing it now, I can see it's still pretty rough round the edges. I'll not comb through the prose, then, as there'll likely be a good deal of work done before this goes to GAN/FAC.
  • Cast sections which simply list actors and roles are largely redundant to the plot summary, as the information is already imparted there. You'd be best expanding this to include real-word information about the casting process and the actors' preparation (this might prove a useful example).
  • The "Production" heading has whole paragraphs lacking citation; the tag here is definitely warranted. If you're going to GA with this, it might be best to just strip out the unsourced stuff and add in anything you find from scratch; but for FA I would keep the unsourced stuff saved somewhere and attempt to specifically track down citations for it as you'll need that for comprehensiveness.
  • "Themes" is similarly lacking in references.
    • Counter to these two points; it's worth noting that the prose identifies the source of some of this information, it might be worth simply rewriting some of this to just use these mentions as in-line citations. If you have the commentaries and documentaries mentioned, it would be a good idea to make note of the times at which these points are raised, as providing time references for longer audio and video references is generally desired.
  • "Release" is very spartan. Unless it can be expanded I'm not sure it should be separate like this; "Release and reception" could provide a suitable merger.
  • When using Rotten Tomatoes for a film this old, it's worth making note that many of the collated reviews will be recent rather than contemporary.
  • I've already mentioned on the article's talk page, but the Susan Faludi quote is pretty irrelevant—it would be an important addition to 1980s in film or Action film; but RoboCop is mentioned in passing in one brief aside alongside several other films, the comment is hardly a judgement on this film specifically so much as this film was rattled off in a list of several films being lumped together. I'd be surprised if there wasn't some relevant criticism of the film that could be used to replace it, but you'd really benefit from using criticism directly aimed at this film.
  • Given how short some of the sections are, it might be worth merging "Novelization", "Legacy" and "Remake" into one section under the title "Legacy". The remake stuff needs to be cited, but Total Film's website does have multiple news stories on the progress of the project so it should be manageable.
• If you manage to expand and restructure this article while the peer review is still underway then drop me a talk message and I'll have another look at it more closely. GRAPPLE X 17:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)