Wikipedia:Peer review/The Rookie (1990 film)/archive1

The Rookie (1990 film) 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 am looking to get the article to FA Status. Its been in the FA queue twice in the past, but failed both times. I added much more thorough content to the article and before taking it in for a 3rd shot, I'd like help with a copy-edit for any prose issues.

Thanks, Mike Tompsonn (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Mike Tompsonn 05:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Plot section does not have any citations. Neither is the article free from gramamtical errors. we need more editors to work on the grammar and to quote appropriate citations needed in the plot section. If adequate citations are added on the plot section, then you can nominate this article for Good Article category. The article has to first filter through B, because it is still a C class article. Nefirious (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, well the plot section along with the lead does not necessarily require citations. Almost every film that met FA requirements do not have cited sources for the plot. Two recent articles that just met FA Status are not cited with sources for the plot either. (Star Trek III: The Search for Spock and American Beauty). How exactly is one supposed to reference that section anyhow aside from citing to watch the DVD. I think almost every FA film does not have s cited plot. And the lead section sometimes contains elements from the plot along with cited information from other parts of the article. Oh, and by the way, I retrieved this particular line from WP:MOSFILM which says the following: Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary. As far as the grammar is concerned, I do need help with it. I'm open and waiting for the suggestions. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be atleast one citation in the Plot. Any editor can manipulate the story of the film if citations aren't quoted. Even Star Trek III: The Search for Spock has one citation. In addition to this WP:MOSFILM mentions a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, which makes it mandatory for you to quote atleast one source. Moreover, the article nominated still has a C class status, it has to be checked for B status first, only then it can be nominated for Feature Article class. Request for deployment of copyeditors from the Film task force and get rid of the grammatical errors. I am sure if you do the above, the article will definitely get a GA status, if not an FA status. Nefirious (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expand the lead section using citations. According to WP:lead, the lead section has to be appropriately cited so that no one can challenge and remove the material. Nefirious (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Brianboulton: Nefirious is wrong on a number of issues:-

On the question of citing the plot summary, Mike Tompsonn is correct, per WP:MOSFILM
Citations are not required in the lead, provided that the material is appropriately cited in the body of the article.
There is no rule that says that the article "has to be checked for B status first, only then it can be nominated for Feature Article class." This is a misconception; any article can be nominated for FAC, whatever its class, provided that the nominator believes that it meets the featured article criteria. Peer review is a voluntary stage in which editors help nominators to bring their articles up to FA standards. Brianboulton (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Boulton Thank You. Anyhow, here was my response for Mr. Nefirious: Well, to expand the lead section is easier said than done. The popularity and influence of this particular film does not really warrant an Avatar-sized introduction. I have limited resources at my disposal. I think for what the movie is, its sufficient. As far as including citations for the lead; alot of the information thats in there, is featured in other areas of the article. And in those other areas, they are cited with sources. Both Star Trek III and American Beauty plus dozens of other FA film articles do not even have a single cited reference in the Lead Section. Now as far as that citation in the plot for Star Trek III, thats a joke. Its one minor detail. What about the other 700 words in the paragraphs? .... There's nothing. And American Beauty lacks a single citation in its Plot section too. Look, by the way, I referenced numerous important details that occur in the plot in the Production Section using the DVD. I think thats sufficient for now. Can you volunteer for a copy-edit????? Mike Tompsonn (talk) 1:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I am pretty right as per WP:MOSFILM not only on one issue but all the other issues and I have clarified my stand. As far as improvement of the article is concenred why dont you nominate it on Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive. It should help you. As far as your article is concenred, it still has to be checked for B status, which I will do shortly. Right now this is all I can do. Nefirious (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go by what I see. If every other film article is the opposite of what your saying, then your still wrong. If you want to check for B status, fine. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article still does not qualify for a B class status, because of the grammatical errors it has in certain sections. Did you nominate it on Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive ? Please do not get discouraged. I am helping the article to get a GA status which it deserves. Nefirious (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One of the issues that came up during FAC was the article's comprehensiveness; with that in mind, I've dumped a list of potential sources on the talk page. Some might only mention the film in passing, but there should at least be something usable in there. In addition, I'll repeat a previous offer: I have until April 4 until I let my HighBeam access lapse, so if there's anything you want me to get you from this list, please let me know and I'll be happy to oblige. On content, it's looking a lot better; the plot section is a little long, so it might be worth seeing where trims could be made. Also take a look at your reference formatting; where one source is used twice or more, it can be given a reference name to allow neater formatting. See WP:REFNAME for more information. Steve ^T • C 11:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hi, Steve. I looked through the table of contents from your Highbeam page on the talk section of The Rookie (including the Italian-Language ones, even though though I don't speak a foreign language); but I just feel it might be what you would call repetitious content. The bases were pretty much covered from what I got so far. But I will continue looking at the list to see if I can integrate more details. Now as far as the Plot Section is concerned; I believe it clocks in at around 740-750 words. On the Wiki Film page, it states the plot should be between 400-700 words. I realize it went slightly over that amount, but I did my best in trimming unnecessary details. The way it is now, is the only way to fully understand the details of the plot. When it was trimmed earlier, some people questioned certain aspects. I had to re-insert then, some more details for people to understand it. Now as far as the formatting is concerned; I saw that!! And I realize the page looks a little goofy on that end. I didn't know how to properly reference the citations in that format. But now with that link, I will make an effort to fix that. Thanks Mike Tompsonn (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summary:: Hello again Mike. When you make changes or additions to the article, also make sure that you describe us what changes you have made so that we know how and in what way the article is being improvised and what aspects have been covered. According to Help:Edit summary, a good editor who is editing an article viewed by tons of people has to summarise the changes he/she makes. Nefirious (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]