Wikipedia:Peer review/Atlantis: The Lost Empire/archive1

Atlantis: The Lost Empire

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

I have put forth a tremendous amount of work and effort taking it from a stub to a GA and would like to get it close to FAC eventually. I need fresh sets of eyes on it, to catch anything that needs fixing and/or improvement. I want honest opinions, be as harsh as you like, as long as it helps me make this article better one way or another. Thanks ahead of time for any prospective volunteers. :)

Thanks, DrNegative (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent job so far! Here are some thoughts:

• The "Plot" section is slightly long for a linear film. The summary should be providing context to understand the content in the article body, not to go out of its way to detail the film in depth.
  • My greatest weakness is trimming plots, because normally when I do, IP's come in and add twice as much as I removed, thus making it worse than what I began with. However, I will try and trim it down some and make it more straightforward over the next few days. DrNegative (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I trimmed about 100 words off the plot and it is down to about 670 words now. DrNegative (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• The "Cast" section makes it seem like these actors played the characters (which could be assumed in a post-Avatar world). Could it be clearer that they voice the characters? Also, the infobox's "Starring" field lists thirteen names, when it could be shorter. Editors usually use poster credits as guidance, but I see that Atlantis does not really have that. Maybe consider not having names listed? Some Featured Articles on Star Trek films do not list names.
  •  Done Removed names from info-box and replaced with wikilink pointing to cast list within article. Also noted that the actors "voiced" the characters in the actual cast list. DrNegative (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• The "Soundtrack" section provides a track listing. There are some new guidelines about writing such sections here (and there is discussion on the related talk page), and one of the points is to avoid doing a listing when the tracks are generically named. The guidelines are preliminary, though, so if you disagree, that's fine. I think that a track listing is more beneficial when one is linking to various songs and/or artists. (The section follows the guidelines otherwise, though!)
  •  Done Removed track listing. DrNegative (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• In the "Box office" section, the budget should not be shown with all these zeroes. It's an unnecessary level of precision (obviously the film did not cost exactly that much). Along similar lines of thinking, another box office-related approach you may want to consider is rounding the figures, writing $186 million instead of $186,053,725. MikeAllen and I have been doing that, though it's up to you.
  •  Done Converted numbers to millions. DrNegative (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• In "Awards and nominations", you can remove the bolding. MOS:BOLD limits where it can be used. It may also be better to reference awards' actual websites instead of IMDb, which is not well-looked upon other than being used as a starting point for research and referencing.
  •  Done Removed bolding. DrNegative (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Will continue searching for better sources. DrNegative (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    •  Done All IMDB references removed and replaced with reliable sources and archives sources from the Wayback machine. DrNegative (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
• In the "References" section, for ref. #4 (DVD supplemental features), any way to be able to identify the approximate time for each reference? I've seen some editors argue for this like a page would be referenced in a book.
  • I agree, I will need to go back to my hand notes and reference all of these, their times and chapter locations on the disc. I will work on it over the next few days. DrNegative (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
    •  Done I went ahead and took reference #4 and formatted it the exact same way which the editor of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier did for the DVD special features in that article, using sub-chapter heading for each of the 5-10 minute segments that the info was based from. From there, I put the disc info in the "reference" section with the actual citations based on it in the "notes" section. I hope that would meet your approval. DrNegative (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I also finished adding the times for each reference. DrNegative (talk) 10:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• I noticed that most of the sources are online. Have you had a chance to look for print sources? Not everything will be available in a Google web search. For example, I looked in Google Books Search and found this and this. In Google Scholar Search, I found this. It may help to do specialized searches and even search in subscription-only electronic databases found at public and university libraries. For example, I looked up this film at Film Index International, and two potentially useful sources are the August 2001 issue of Cinefantastique (which has multiple articles about the film) and the May 2001 issue of Creative Screenwriting, which has an interview with the screenwriter. I bring this up because a Featured Article needs to be comprehensive, since that's your goal. I can post the other references on the talk page.
  • Thanks Eric. I will take a look at these sources and try to implement them into the article. Several would be good for starting a "Themes" subsection too. DrNegative (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I will try to give the article a fuller reading this week. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)