Wikipedia:Peer review/The Lord of the Rings (1978 film)/archive1

I'd just like some general opinion on this article. (Ibaranoff24 02:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Image layout is poor. Squeezing text between pics is never a good idea.
Maybe a bit too much screencaps overall.
You want more footnotes. Converting these external links (see {{cite web}}) in the text to footnotes will be appreciated by WP:CITE fanatics. You might even consider switching to meta:Cite/Cite.php format while there are few notes
The "differences" section should be prose, not list
The "trivia" section should be reduced as much as possible, preferably by incorporating the material elsewhere in the article. If it's trivia, it's by definition unencyclopedic.
You want to lenghten the lead as per WP:LEAD.
Circeus 02:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barriers to FAC include dealing with the trivia (which is frowned upon), making the "Differences from the book" list into prose, and converting the external links in the body into footnotes. Some of the trivia can be converted into a "Criticism" section that outlines what critics felt was well done and not-so well done in the movie. Also, before submitting to FAC check with an editor who is familiar with image guidelines (like Carnildo or Gnangarra) to ensure that the images are being used correctly. --maclean25 19:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]