Wikipedia:Peer review/Birdman (film)/archive1

Birdman (film)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to promote the page to GA status, but have only worked on the production section: please ONLY review this (production) section. I will in due course rewrite the rest of the article, but would like feedback on what I've written so far. Approx. 4000 words.

Thanks, Neuroxic (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Overall, I think the production section is well written and thorough. I hesitate to say it might be too detailed, but because it is an Academy Award winner, the length of this section reflects its increased notability. One small issue is this sentence:

They weren't the only people he faced resistance from though; "huge" and "important" people told him to not even try the project,[8] and he himself described it as "almost suicidal", not knowing whether the technique would be successful, and worrying that it would become a distraction.[10]

The sentence needs to be rewritten to place "huge" and "important" in the voice of whomever is quoted, which is not clear. Using Wikipedia's editorial voice does not work here. Over all, though, the section looks good! --Zfish118 (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Zfish118: Thanks for your feedback. Too detailed? Believe me, I struggled to keep information out after the hundreds of interviews I read! But in seriousness I do consider it an important movie, completing the trifecta of 2014's masterpieces (along with The Grand Budapest Hotel and Boyhood.) I think this and the film's atypical production approach warrants the level of exposition.

Addressing your concern, would it be suitable replacing the line you mentioned by adding authorship such as

They weren't the only people he faced resistance from though; according to Dinelaris and Giacobone "huge" and "important" people told him to not even try the project,[8]...

or would it be better to reduce specificity?

They weren't the only people he faced resistance from though; several people told him not to even try the project,[8]...

Cheers, Neuroxic (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the first rewrite ("according to Dinelaris and Giacobone..." presents their point view that the author was strongly cautioned against the project better. --Zfish118 (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Zfish118:Changes made! Thanks again for taking the time to look through it. Neuroxic (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This article smells like balls, what is it doing here, it doesn't belong here...but otherwise its looking good, great job. Hope to see it promoted soon.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Neuroxic (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)