Wikipedia:Peer review/Pulp Fiction (film)/archive1

Pulp Fiction (film) edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I was just sitting here, eating my muffin, drinking my coffee, when I had what alcoholics refer to as a "moment of clarity."

Thanks, DCGeist 18:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Hope you don't mind my writer/director fix to the lead. It seems more sensible to me that way.

Looks good.—DCGeist 16:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overvew and Plot should probably be combined. That might go a ways towards alleviating the rigid nature of the plot synopsis (I'm not sure the individual stories need to be so explicitly separated)
Just curious: does Tarantino himself describe the film's structure when laid out chronologically as "4a, 2, 6, 1, 7, 3, 4b, 5."?

No, not that explicitly in one place.—DCGeist 23:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack should probably be a separate section. I don't see why Cast necessarily needs to be a subsection of Development; by that I mean I'd prefer it be a separate section, but it can work either way.
Move Critical Analysis before Legacy and Reputation.
I think it's just because I haven't seen the film in years, but doesn't Marsellus say "I'm gonna get medieval on your ass"?

Nope. He distinctively says, "I'm 'a get..."—DCGeist 16:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you could get an image of the Banksy mural that would be more fitting for the section.

I don't think so. The mural can be seen in the Wikipedia article on Banksy, as is appropriate. Its source is the scene illustrated here in the Pulp Fiction article. The image of the two suited killers isn't well-known because Banksy painted a mural of it; he painted a mural of it because the image was already well-known. The connection with the Time top 100 list further underscores the significance of showing it here.—DCGeist 23:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me adding the Banksy image is more effective because the section is Influence and Reputation, and the image displays the film's influence in a more direct, tangeable way, rather than saying "This image is influential." Plus it's free . . . WesleyDodds 02:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's free. It's in.—DCGeist 03:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you actually expand the caption a little bit (something you've never had problems with before)? I actually laughed out loud when I read the phrase "Banksy's 'famous' mural." Without context it seems like a sly dig. WesleyDodds 03:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unintentional. Though as I looked at it this time, I did think, "What a crap excuse for an artist." I'll expand the caption (though, as you can see, I've been trying so hard to be good...).—DCGeist 03:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the Critical Analysis section should start with a quote. Can you summarize the basic analyses of the film provided first?

Quote moved. Section now begins with analysis of connections to various other literary and cinematic genre modes and directorial styles.—DCGeist 20:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better. However, the phrase "Referring to the magazine largely responsible for popularizing hardboiled detective fiction in the 1930s" is awkward. I considered moving it to the end of the sentence, or splicing up Tarantino's accompanying quote and inserting it inbetween, but did quite work out. Can you make this less cumbersome? WesleyDodds 08:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In between seems to work best, and the 1930s part of the phrase can be cut--not quite precise (Black Mask was publishing impt hardboiled tales by the mid-1920s) and not quite necessary, given the wonders of Wikilinking.—DCGeist 06:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list of Butch's killamijigs and its allusions should be converted into prose.

Given that the passage in question is largely (over 80 percent) blue links, it seems to me easier to read as a bulleted list.—DCGeist 18:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The repetition of "It was also nominated . . ." in the Awards section is . . . uh, repetitious (sorry).

Section reformatted.—DCGeist 08:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. I've read the article a few days ago, but I shall take another close read soon. Please mention any areas you have questions about or are struggling with. WesleyDodds 08:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a very sound article to me and is well referenced. This clearly is a potential FA and should reach GA pretty easily I think. Featured articles always have that little bit extra and this is clearly on the right lines thanks to DC Geist's hard work at it. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]