Wikipedia:Peer review/Manhunter (film)/archive2

Manhunter (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, although it has received one back in February of this year, it has grown substantially since then. Having passed as a Good Article, it has been nominated for Featured status, but a poor showing at FAC meant that the only vote was one oppose. I'd like to ensure that the article is at its highest possible standard before nominating it again, so any help that anyone could offer would be great. Thanks!

GRAPPLE X 18:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from GeeJo

Immediate comments:

Images have sufficient rationales and alt texts are provided for screen readers (always nice to see) and the captioning makes the purpose of the image wonderfully clear.
Plot section looks a bit on the large side, some fat could definitely do with being trimmed. You don't need itemised details of every plot movement, just the general direction.
I'm not a huge fan of "see also" sections. Generally, items listed there are either redundant as they're linked in the main text or irrelevant.

Detailed comments

Lede: "...to track down the killer; and shows..." Semicolons don't work like that. I'm not certain you need any punctuation there at all, for that matter.
Lede: "stylised". Some sections use "ize", others "ise". It doesn't overly matter whether you go with AmE or BrE, but you need to be consistent.
Pre-production: "initially began". Tautologous.
Pre-production: "Brian Cox has also", "Tom Noonan, who played the killer Francis Dollarhyde,". You repeat one's connection to the film, but not the other. Both approaches have merit but, again, consistency is good.
Pre-production: The tenses in the final sentence are a bit awkward.
Production: "to adapt a guerrilla filmmaking approach." Adapt or adopt?
Production: comma usage in the first sentence is strictly correct but a bit awkward. Maybe shorten it a bit.
Production: The anecdotes and some of the quotations in this section seem at times to be a bit more "magazine review" than "encyclopedia". I'm not sure how to help you here.
Post-production: Again, it's obvious on reading this that much of the material is from interviews and primary sources rather than academic or other secondary sources. There's nothing wrong with this for a B or even Good article, but it seems to have altered the tone of the writing in ways I'd be uncomfortable seeing in a Featured Article.
Soundtrack: I'm in two minds over whether or not you should make the sources of the quotations explicit in the article text.
Soundtrack: You remark that the soundtrack wasn't released on compact disc, but neglect to say what format(s) it *was* released in. Cassette tape? Vinyl? Wax cylinder?
Themes: Of all the sections in the article, this is the one I'm most comfortable with.
Box office: You mention the gross, but without context (such as the budget) it's not immediately obvious whether the film was a success or not. There's a lot of information in the first paragraph of "Reception" that probably belongs here
Box office: "postponed for almost two years." August 1986 and November 1987 aren't "almost two years" apart.
Home media: the section has information on DVD and Blu-Ray, but this film was released in *1986*. Was it never released on VHS or *shudder* Betamax? If it was, was there a Director's Cut available in those formats?

That's all for now, I'm off to get some breakfast. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 07:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I have addressed those that can be done readily. As for content coming from interviews and magazines, it's a problem that seems unavoidable for the time being - the vast majority of scholarly sources I've been able to turn up on the film are too scholarly for the bulk of the article. It's why the 'themes' section works so well, as the film is analysed for thematic content without any real academic documentation of the nuts and bolts and making of it. The lack of information about VHS/Beta/Laserdisc releases, if there were any, is simply lack of sources. The film flopped and took a while to gain cult status, and in that interim period, no one cared enough to really report any release information. I'll dig up what I can, though at the minute, that is solely a few Amazon listings of the VHS tape. As for your comment that some information from the "reception" section could go under the "box office" header, is there anything in particular you think should be moved? Thanks again for your time, I appreciate it. GRAPPLE X 03:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also managed to track done one source for the laserdisc edition, still looking for more info on it and the VHS too. GRAPPLE X 22:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have cited some information about the VHS releases of the film as well. They're not as detailed as the DVD information is, but that's seemingly unavoidable. GRAPPLE X 01:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why is there a cast list at the very bottom of the page? I mean, I know there is current discussion about whether we should have a basic "list", or how that section should look, but I do know there is a general consensus that it shouldn't be the last thing on the page. BIGNOLE (Contact me)

It was added by another user and I wasn't sure whether the best idea would be to remove it or add to it with information. Is repeating information from elsewhere in the article such as casting decisions, etc, in the cast list appropriate or should it just be taken out? GRAPPLE X 20:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's up for the regular editors of this page to decide how they want the cast information presented. There are many different ways to do it, and each has its own pros and cons. It just shouldn't be the last thing on the page. So, if you guy(s)/gal(s) don't think a list is necessary then don't put one in. If you think it is, then it should be up higher, probably just below the "Plot" section. I mean, I have my preference, and I know that Erik has his own preference, and others have different preferences for he and I. I would look over other FA film articles (the more recent the better) and see what style you prefer. You have cast information already, so it's really just a matter of how you present the info you have. Just make sure it's not the last thing on the page. :D BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'll move it up the page and throw in some information for each entry. I just wasn't sure if repeating information was alright, but if it is then I can model the section on other similar sections in other FA articles. I just didn't want to cannibalise the rest of the article just for padding. GRAPPLE X 21:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done what I can with it for now. Going to have another trawl over the DVD commentary and the like to see if anything about Farina, Lang or Greist can be found, as it's a little Spartan on their parts. Aside from that, I feel that this might be ready for its next bash at FAC. GRAPPLE X 22:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Erik

A featured article should be comprehensive and well-researched, so here are some resources I found:

Any chance of vetting those? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks! Of those, I have had a look at Blood in the Moonlight and Detecting Men before, though neither really had much to say that would be relevant to the article - Blood focussed on a narrow allegorical 'video age' idea, whilst Detecting Men was quite cursory in its mentions. I'll have a look at the others, though, and see what I can put to use. Thanks again! GRAPPLE X 21:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WorldCat.org is a pretty useful resource for finding print sources. :) If a book has a table of contents published, one can search for the appropriate keyword and find relevant chapters within books. I've crossed out the ones you said you've vetted. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm checking each entry in Google Books for what I can use. I'll cross off anything that I look through. Might use a few to add second refs to already-sourced points just so that they're backed up with scholarly sources as well as the extant ones. GRAPPLE X 21:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of those seem to be unavailable online, so I don't know what I can glean from them. I'll check both the town and university libraries next chance I get, though, to see if they're available there for a read through, though. Have used what I can, though, which was useful. Thanks again! GRAPPLE X 21:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]