Dragon (2006 film) edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is related to a school assignment involving expansion of a lacking article. Any editorial feedback regarding this article's suitability or necessary revisions would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Sarah.J.Campbell (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- First off, welcome to Wikipedia! It's nice to see that some schools are actively allowing/encouraging students to learn about the project. I was never allowed to do so! It looks like you've already expanded the article considerably from the stub it used to be. The best way to see what an article is lacking or needs is to look at our featured articles. These exemplify the very best quality work on Wikipedia. Film Featured Articles are listed under Media. You can check some of those articles out to compare with Dragon. Of course, not every article has the same information available about it, so you don't need to try and make it a section by section copy. However, there are some important details which this article needs for it to be improved:
- Lead and infobox
- The lead should be a bare bones overview of the rest of the article. In this case, it should discuss the director(s), what it is about, have a mini plot synopsis, say who played the roles of the main characters, and discuss the release (theatrical and home media). See WP:LEAD for more details on that.
- What did it make at the box office? There are websites out there which can track that kind of detail.
- Sourcing
- References should be to reliable, secondary sources wherever possible. Anything added that could be considered original research by another editor should be backed up by a citation.
- What makes Horrortalk a reliable source?
- Some of your citations are formatted and others are not. I recommend using the templates at WP:CITET for easy and consistant sourcing models.
- I highly recommend you archive all active weblinks. If a website is remodelled links can be lost permanently, meaning that the information can no longer be verified. As time goes on this can happen, and the information can be lost forever. It's a tedious process, but entirely worthwhile. WebCite is excellent for this. All you need to do in the citations is add |archiveurl= |archivedate= to the citation templates.
- Files
- Your fair use rationale for File:Dragon film 2006.jpeg looks good. No issues there.
- Soundtrack
- Can you provide any more details? When was the album recorded? How long is the album? What is on it (you can use {{tracklist}} for that - it is simpler than it looks)? You can use the album's liner notes to source this, along with any other references you find.
- General prose
- Dragon only needs to be bolded the first time it is mentioned in the lead. All other instances throughout the article should only be in italics. Since Eragon isn't the subject of the article, it shouldn't be bolded at any time.
- Reception
- Different reviews don't need their own paragraph. You can combine several reviews into one paragraph to give an overview.
- many drawing a parallel between the release of Dragon and the film adaptation of Eragon → who?
- Consider adding info from Rotton Tomatoes and Metacritic. Most film articles have them, and they are very useful. They could lead you to more reviews to integrate into the prose as well.
- Is there any more critical reception to add? Did it win or get nominated for any awards (or Raspberries)?
- Missing sections
- Production and filming — all the details about what went into the filming process (writing the script, casting, budget, where it was filmed, how long it took, details on CGI, etc.)
- Release — where and when. Did it have a theatrical release? How many cinemas? What was the box office take? What medium was it released on for homes (VHS, DVD, BD, digital download, etc.)? Any sales info? How about merchandising tie-ins?
I hope that this helps a bit. WikiProject Film is the WikiProject which devotes itself to creating and building up articles on movies. Check there; they will probably have some useful links you can use; not only for what details the article needs, but where you can find those details. You've chosen to improve an article that is, so far as I can tell, fairly obscure, which might make your task a bit tough. The beautiful thing about Wikipedia though is that any article can become Featured if enough hard work is put into it. If Google sarches aren't providing enough information for you, try searching through some databases. You may find some information in there. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to drop me a line here or on my talk page. Good luck! Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)