Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Peer review/Magnolia (film)

Magnolia (film) edit

This was a highly regarded film when it was released in 1999, dividing critics and is an important milestone in Paul Thomas Anderson's career. I have added a considerable amount of production and reception info to this article and would like any other suggestions or comments to improve it to GA status. Thanks. --J.D. (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone smarter than me will have to discuss how to write the plot section, but I do recommend WP:LEAD, and fleshing out the stuff on themes. Alientraveller (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belovedfreak edit

I think this is a hard film to write an article about, and also a difficult article to review because of the complexities of the film, but I'll give it a go.

I would get rid of the flag in the infobox (WP:FLAG)
The lead needs expanding and needs to summarise the whole article per WP:LEAD.

Overview

"narrated by an uncredited Ricky Jay" - needs citation
I think that the description of the introduction is perhaps a little too long. "The events, which are well-known urban legends in the universe of the film" - needs citation - how do we know that these three stories are urban legends? Also, the one about Sir Edmund William Godfrey appears to based on a true story, not an urban legend.
"while Aimee Mann's version of Harry Nilson's "One" plays in the background:" - I'm not sure that mentioning the song really adds anything to the plot summary.
the character relationships table - it is helpful, but I think it borders on original research. The significance of the things that the characters have in common is open to interpretation.
sentences like "implying that the unlikely connections" and "Another explanation could be..." definitely seem like OR.

Cast

MOS:FILM and it's talkpage seem to favour a list over a table for cast sections. It might be better to try to incorporate some of the cast info elsewhere in the article into the cast section.

Reception

the sentence about Rotten Tomatoes' rating says "currently" - could be replaced with "As of..." to avoid it becoming out of date.

Themes

"Many essays and other writings..." - I see this has been mentioned on the talkpage. Which essays? If these many essays etc are reliable, they need to be mentioned and used as sources for the article. If they're not reliable, they shouldn't be mentioned at all.
Needs at least one more citation - for the last sentence
Could do with being expanded, maybe using the "many essays", perhaps moving some of the earlier discussion about Biblical references down to this section.

DVD

What region DVD are you talking about? Are these special features available on all regions?
This section could do with some info about DVD release / distribution.
This section needs citations.

External links

I don't think the Arts & faith link is really necessary.
The cigarettes and red vines site - is this a fansite? Does it add to the article? Is it reliable? Can info from it be incorporated into the article? I haven't had much of a look at it - it does seem reasonable though.

Anyway, good work so far - I hope this helps. --Beloved Freak 12:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]