Wikipedia:Peer review/The Hobbit (film project)/archive1

The Hobbit (film project) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to be promoted to Good Article status. Please list any criticisms or suggestions that you may have in order for it to meet the requirements of Good Article status quality.

Thanks, TheLastAmigo (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but if you look at WP:GAN#FILM, you can see in big bold letters that you should NOT NOMINATE FILMS THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN RELEASED AS DETAILS WITHIN THE ARTICLE MAY CHANGE AND IT *WILL* BE FAILED. Unfortunately, that seems pretty final. Seegoon (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know what the authority is for the bolded statement, above. It seems to me that, in some circumstances, the making of a film could be considered a separate topic from the film itself, and could justify a separate article which could meet the GA criteria. I have, for instance, often seen documentaries called "The Making of XYZ" etc. There could be specific issues of interest during the planning and production periods; I haven't read this article yet, so I can't say whether this applies here, but maybe the article is worth considering from that perspective. This is peer review, a non-judgmental process. Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I like Tolkien very much and am a fan of Jackson's LOTR movies. I have also followed some of the convoluted history of the film to date and thought this article covered that nicely. While I agree that if this is an article on the two films, it is not yet ready for GAN or FAC, there are still area where it can be improved. Here are some comments on its prospects at GAN, followed by some suggestions for improvement and .

GAN

First off, I agree that if this is the only article about the two films, it is not ready for GAN (where one of the criteria is broad coverage - how can the coverage be broad when the films are still shooting?). If the article is about both films, then I can't see it being ready until a short time after the release of the second film (to get some time for initial reviews and box office figures, etc.).
That said, I can see there being articles about each of the two films, and a separate article about the two films overall (just as there are 4 articles on the 3 LOTR films). Since the history leading up to the start of filming has been so involved, I could even see there being a fifth article (this article) on the development history of The Hobbit films. This is what Brian argued above.
If that were the route taken here, then this article (under a better / more applicable title) might well be ready for GAN soon (if the start of filming is the end of the end of the article about the "Development history of the Hobbit films" or whatever title works). To my thinking, the current level of detail is likely to be too much for any eventual article on the completed movie or movies, so this could be a separate article and then WP:Summary style used in the film articles.
In any case, I would ask at WT:GAN or WT:GA and see what the GA regulars think about this. If they think something along these lines would work, then try it (if you think it would also work / be feasible).
I also think that even if it were on a topic where it was OK to submit now, this article still needs some work before it would be ready for GAN. Those comments will follow shortly.

Review

The external link checker shows 5 dead links
Please see WP:LEAD - the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However the tv shows The Office and Spooks and the year of the book The Hobbit are only in the lead and should be in the body of the article too.
The lead needs to be expanded so it is an accurate summary. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but nothing on del Toro is mentioned in the lead.
Avoid words like currently and vague time expressions as they can become quickly outdated - so The two parts are currently in production, and are being filmed back to back in New Zealand; principal photography began on 21 March 2011.[5].. Could be something like As of May 2011 the two parts are in production...
The Premise section is written from an in-universe perspective - imagine someone who has no idea what the book is about reading this.
A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. The Lord of the Rings film trilogy is a GA and seems like a pretty good model here. I note that Production design of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy and Principal photography of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy and other similar articles exist and may give some ideas if this is to be focused only on development.
The Cast section seems too long - I think much of it could be split off into a Casting section.
The MOS Says not to both link and use boldface for something
Needs a ref A member of the Company of Dwarves and brother of Dori and Ori. Brophy has collaborated with Jackson on several films, including Braindead, Heavenly Creatures, and all three Lord of the Rings films as various creatures.
I was also surprised that the Background section did not mention Tolkien writing the book and publishing it in 1937. Also expected at least a mention of the Rankin-Bass Hobbit film.
Not sure that the Video games belong in this article (especially if it focuses just on development).
Make sure references include complete information - so one example I checked was current ref 23 an there is an author listed (Eddie van der Walt) in the article, but not in the ref (but should be)
I would bet there are free images of some more of the people involved that could be used here)
Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]