Wikipedia:Peer review/The Last Castle/archive1

The Last Castle

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.
  • I complied with the peer review and added consistency with dates, measurement, references and numbers. I also moved the IMDB link out of the infobox and down to the external links as the film guideline requires it. Awaiting more review.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a great movie that deserves a good wikipage. I have worked on it a lot to bring it to it's now state and need some pointers on how to improve it and what quality it currently is in. I just wanna know what's missing for B-class.

Thanks, Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Limetolime's review

This is a wonderful article. Gives a lot of information about the film; substantial references help, too. Links are OK, ready for GA nomination. All that could be done is adding more info to the "Production" section. Limetolime ^{Talk to me • look what I did!} 15:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by User:Ling.Nut

• This article is a fixer-upper.
• As has always been my prob recently, I just don't have time to do much. I'll do what I can... but I see many, many grammatical and MOS problems here. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 08:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• I strongly suggest that the principal editors of this article find a good grammar book and read all of the sections dealing with the placement and use of commas. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 08:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

I will give this article a more detailed review, but it may take a day or two due to other commitments. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I'm sorry I can only give this limited time, but I have tried to deal with some of the article's problems, and have identified a few more for you consider. I agree with Ling Nut that considerable attention needs to be given to improving grammar, also punctuation. I don't think the article is that far off a B rating, however, and a little dedicated work will get it there.

• Lead: I have copyedited the lead. I also think that Gandolfini shaould be described as a co-star rather than as "a supporting actor". His role in the film is as critical as Redford's.

• Plot: There are numerous faults in this section.
  • It should be written in present tense throughout. At present you have "after the wall was destroyed" Done
  • A word like "rank" does not need linking. If you want to link "warden" and "Colonel", this should be done in the lead, at first mentions. Done
  • The organisation of the section seems very haphazard. Information is sometimes given in peculiar order: for example, the sentence beginning "Irwin has been sent to prison..." belongs immediately after the opening statement about the court-martial, and should read: "Irwin has been sentenced because he ignored..." etc. There are other instances of seeming random-placed sentences. Also, there should be a paragraph break at "Slowly, the prisoners begin acting..." Done
  • There is a lot of informal wording – can't, doesn't, etc, also "but backs down some...". You need to stick to encyclopedic language.
  • There are numerous awkwardly worded sentences. One example, near the beginning: The prison's warden, Colonel Winter, who had greatly admired Irwin in the past, invites him to his office in a show of admiration". The "admired/admiration" proximity is very clumsy. The sentence could be simplified to "The warden, Colonel Winter, once an admirer of Winter, invites him to his office." Note that this is one example from numerous sentences that need attention.
  • The end of the story is confusingly explained. Winter s "led away" – by whom, and why? Could he not claim that he was dealing with a riot from prisoners who were evidently armed? It doesn't ring true.

• Cast: No need to lnk again the names already linked, and boldface should not be used. Also, tou don't need these summaries of the main roles, since this information has been given previously.

• Production: I've copyedited the first paragraph. I don't have time for more, but more prose work is indeed necessary, here and throughout the article.

• Release and reception: There are concealed comments in the edit box about the reliability of the some of the data you give, relating to the film's reception.

I hope these comments give you some ideas for improving the article. Sorry I can't do more. Brianboulton (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)