Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Peer review/But I'm a Cheerleader/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But I'm a Cheerleader[edit]

I've recently done a lot of work on this article and I'm hoping to get it to GA standard. What else needs to be done? Any comments appreciated. --Belovedfreak 13:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In some places the references are incomplete - WP:CITE#Full_citations can give you more information on what a full reference should look like. Aside from that, I'd suggest you look at GA-class film articles to see what they look like - the article looks great to me. -Malkinann 23:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have replaced one source which didn't have a name or a date attached. Other than that I'm not sure what else I can do. Some of the articles I used don't have dates on them, and some of the websites don't have the names of the contributors. Belovedfreak 20:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMDb is sometimes objected as an unacceptable source, so you may wish to find additional sources to replace IMDb sources. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 01:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've only used IMDb for the soundtrack, and one of the awards. Unfortunately the official website for the Creteil awards doesn't list previous winners as yet, and because the soundtrack was never released I haven't found a better reference for that yet, but I will keep looking. --Belovedfreak 17:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's some additional things:
    • Plot
      • "They produce such evidence as her vegetarianism, pictures of girls, her almost-refusal to make out with Jared, and a poster of gay icon Melissa Etheridge." - Did Mike and Megan produce this "evidence" together? Does Megan actually believe she is a lesbian at this point?
      • "Megan's parents send her to True Directions..." Why did her parents send her to True Directions? True Directions is a 5-step program for what? Yes, there's an obvious answer, but it should be said here to avoid confusion. Why did Megan agree to go to True Directions?
      • Who is Graham and why is he "dubious of the process"?
        • OK, one thing I'm a bit worried about... is it not clear that Graham is a girl? I know the name's confusing... Given the nature of their relationship, should I explicitly state that Graham's a girl? --Belovedfreak 17:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Background and production
      • "But I'm a Cheerleader is Babbit's first feature film.[1] She had previously directed two short films, both of which were shown at the Sundance Film Festival". What was Babbit's other two films? Maybe expand more on Babbit (possibly use {{Main}}).
    • Is the unedited NC-17 version available?
      • I have no idea, can't find any info on this.--Belovedfreak 12:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could we get some positive responses about the film?
      • I've added some more from the more positive reviews.--Belovedfreak 12:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 01:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for that feedback, I will get to work on your suggestions. --Belovedfreak 17:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FilmFemme[edit]

Lead

  • There were a couple confusing phrases that could use rewording but I couldn't think of anything better: "...Babbit made cuts to allow it to be re-rated as R, and consequently featured in the documentary film This Film Is Not Yet Rated." and "The film was not critically very well received"

Plot

  • I did some minor copyediting

Background and Production

  • The opening blurb seems misplaced. It's a statement about the director and her credits, not the background & production of the film. I would take it out.
    • I expanded this at the suggestion of Ash Lux above... I thought it provides a useful background, knowing a bit about the director. I'l have a look at some other articles and see if there's any convention.--Belovedfreak 12:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The expanded version is better than the previous version, but I still wonder if it's really necssary.FilmFemme

Story

  • I don't really think this is the right title for this section - it's about the impetus of the idea for the story but the title is too synonymous with "plot" maybe "beginnings" or "idea" or something like that would be a better descriptor here.
    • I've tried "conception" - any better, or does that sound silly?--Belovedfreak 12:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

  • According to film article style guidelines, short character descriptions are really only necessary when the character is not mentioned in the plot summary. Nearly all of these characters are mentioned in your summary, so I wonder if this section is necessary at all.
    • OK, I'm thinking about this, I keep looking at current FA / GA articles, trying to compare...--Belovedfreak 12:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's tricky because the style guidelines seem to imply a cast list is not necessary but I know the film article tag suggests that a film article is not complete without one. I personally like to avoid lists at all costs and I really think that in this case, the plot summary is detailed enough that who the characters are is very clear without this section. FilmFemme

Reception
Critics

  • I dislike the fact that the director is given a voice in this section. I do not believe that it is appropriate to take an argumentative tone here ("Babitt has said...") but rather, to state factually how reviewers responded to the film. I would take out any mention of Babitt's rebuttals including "although the filmmakers intended"
    • I agree with you, but I'm not sure how to approach this. I really wanted to include the statements made by Babbit about the John Waters comparisons. Since many reviewers compared her to him, and she stated in several interviews that she waasn't trying to do a John Waters film, I thought it was quite an important thing to include. I could maybe move it to the production section, with the paragraph about influences. I will try to work on this... --Belovedfreak 12:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't look like you actually changed anything in this section, but I like it better today anyway. I'm just fickle that way, I guess.FilmFemme
      • The other thing I would say about this section is that I question if you need so many footnotes. 3 or 4 superscripts in a row makes a sentence look very confusing. I don't know if there is a convention for this or not. I also prefer to have the citiations at the end of sentences where posisble, but that is just a personal preference, no guideline.FilmFemme
        • I still think you may be right about having the director's comments in the reception section, just not worked out how to change it yet. And, you have a point about the citations, I'm just a bit paranoid about not referenceing everything. Because I was talking about "several" reviewers, I thought I needed a few references. Maybe I just need to take out "several"... --Belovedfreak 10:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music

  • Is the intro blurb necessary when you have a track listing? The list makes it obvious who contributed and the composer is in the infobox so I would take the blurb out completely.
    • Well, I have read somewhere that all the info in the infobox should also be present in the article. And I wanted to highlight the RuPaul song since he's in the film. It's not really necessary to mention the other acts, I think I was just wanting to flesh it out a bit.--Belovedfreak 12:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've since remembered the film a little better and distinctly remember it having a Rushmore-esque soundtrack - meaning that the songs were always very dead-on and 'visible' so I think having a little intro blurb in this section is OK. FilmFemme

Hope you find these comments helpful. FilmFemme 18:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • yes, thankyou!--Belovedfreak 12:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually think this article could probably be a GA - if not now then very very soon. It seems very complete to me. Nice work! FilmFemme 20:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment Not a full peer review from me, but a quick comment. Cast lists are boring! Move it to the end so it's easier to find the critical commentary, etc. Good luck on bringing this to GA status. -Midnightdreary 19:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • thanks - not sure about this one, I was following the MoS for this... everyone seems to have different ideas...--Belovedfreak 10:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ADD-ish but the first thing that sticks out is the plot section is too long - you have the Steps there so I suggest using those as actual subsections. I saw the film and enjoyed it so good luck. Benjiboi 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plot was shorter but has been increased, by me and others, in attempting to clarify some confusing points. I will try to edit it down a bit more. --Belovedfreak 10:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raystorm[edit]

Hi, great job with the article! :-) A few suggestions:

  • You need some spoiler warnings before and after the plot. Going steady doesn't need dashes, I believe.
    • Spoiler warnings were taken out by someone else - seems to be a change in policy. Dashes have been taken out. Belovedfreak 10:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not too sure about the way the steps are pointed out. I don't think you need to bold them, either. Try to introduce the steps, instead of just putting them in a parentheses. Like you did for steps 2 and 5. You know what I mean?
    • Kind of - still struggling with the plot really. --Belovedfreak 10:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One night, several campers, including Graham and a reluctant Megan, escape for a night out at a local gay bar with two ex-ex-gays, Larry (Richard Moll) and Lloyd (Wesley Mann). Too much use of the word night.
  • But I'm a Cheerleader is Babbit's first feature film.[1] She had previously directed two short films, Frog Crossing (1996) and Sleeping Beauties (1999), both of which were shown at the Sundance Film Festival. She went on to direct 2005 thriller The Quiet and 2007 comedy Itty Bitty Titty Committee. You switch tenses here, it's better to keep to the same if it's possible.
    • sorted (I do get in a mess with tenses sometimes...) --Belovedfreak 10:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just a suggestion, but perhaps the cast section could be mentioned before? That way, you don't need to keep wikilinking the actor's names time and again. I see another user has argued against it. Hmm, well, I agree they are boring, but they are useful! You may have to see what other movie articles (FA's, especially) have done with this.
  • Several reviewers[17][18][19][24]compared the film to those of director John Waters but felt that it fell short of the mark. And other following sentences: references always go after a comma or a full stop, not in the middle of a sentence.
    • sorted, I think, possibly still needs work. --Belovedfreak 10:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the track listing is a bit excessive, don't you think? :-)
    • Well, I actually think, based on anecdotal evidence, that a lot of people who are fans of the film, really liked the music and would be interested in a track listing. When I was searching to find out if the soundtrack had been officially released I came across a few "unofficial" soundtracks that suggests there is some interest. --Belovedfreak 10:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any info about adaptations of this movie (book, theatre, other countries...)?
    • Good idea - I've just discovered there was a stage adaptation and have added this. --Belovedfreak 10:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work with the article, as I said. :-) I hope you find this (somewhat) useful. Cheers! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 19:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note in response to the above editor's suggestions... He/She suggestion spoiler tags but Wikipedia has recently changed its policy on spoiler tags. Generally speaking, if you have an article on a film with a section called "Plot summary" or something along those lines, the spoiler tags are redundant. I'm not saying I'm 100% in agreement, but ya know... -Midnightdreary 21:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dev920[edit]

I think this article is fantastic, but it has some small issues. Finance might be better combined with your initial blurb on background, it's a bit short. But my main concern is the criticism section, which, incredibly has too many citations. You don't need to have all those cites straght after a word you're quoting, AFAIK, and it might be a good ideas to expand them about into sentences like "Somes critics thought it was heavy handed, with mr bloogs from blah calling it meh". It'll look much better. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I know what you mean about the citations. I think I was just a bit paranoid about not having enough, especially when I have said "several critics" etc. I will have another look at it and try and sort it out. --Belovedfreak 21:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have cut down the citations a little bit, especially where there were 3 or 4 clumped together. I'm not sure what to do now though, because if I remove the ones I have after individual words, like you mentioned, moving to the end if sentences, then I'm going to be left with too many in a row again. It's all muddling my brain a bit now. Have you got any suggestions how I could clean it up a bit? --Belovedfreak 13:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Peer_review/But_I%27m_a_Cheerleader/archive1&oldid=1138363864"