Wikipedia:Peer review/Storm in a Teacup (film)/archive1

Storm in a Teacup (film)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was close to become deleted by PROD, but someone contested it. Therefore, one editor added some reviews into this article; I have to do the rest, such as confirming the date of release and adding more reviews. Well, I did "original research" of "Copyright status", but that was removed. I haven't watched the movie yet, but this is all I can. --George Ho (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro1

I'm not too sure what is being requested here, and I'm not sure the nominator knows either if they have not seen the film! This is a long, long way from GA or FA status. It is barely more than a stub and it is not really appropriate for PR at the moment. Here are some suggestions to take the article forward.

The article should not really be submitted for review with an under construction banner. Or at such an early stage of development.
Generally, films have a "Plot" section which summarises the plot of the film. There are also usually sections on Casting, Writing, Filming, Reception, etc. This article lacks any of this information except some details of its reception.
The article should include background about how the film came to be written, it's source, and how the cast and crew were assembled.
Details about the studio and distributer should also be included, with more information obviously helpful if available.
A greater range of sources is required. Possible places to look are biographies/autobiographies of the actors (one is listed in the bibliography) or production crew, sources about the studios involved, newspaper reviews, and ideally, books and sources which are directly about the film.
I recommend looking at some film GAs and FAs to give further ideas about how the article could be developed. Some film FAs are listed here.
If this is a British film, it should really use British English.
"Over the years, a number of favorable reviews grew": Reviews can't grow. Better to say "the number of favourable reviews grew".
There is not much else that can be said about the article as it stands.

I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have any questions or comments, please use my talk page. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]