Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Avatar (2009 film)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Avatar (2009 film)

Toolbox
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 I think this is a very interesting article, deserving no less than to ne an FA. I have only made a couple edits to it, but it is a very interesting article (which I have already noted), and I will be willing to make as many contributions to the article as I can.

Thanks, Guy546(Talk) 22:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


One minor thing I noticed from a quick read, is that there is some disagreement with the numbers - it seems like the article intends to write out numbers below ten, but misses a few '4 million, 3-m, Season 5' etc. Canada Hky (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by H1nkles

This review is going to take some time so I will start by giving a few comments about the article and its transition from GA to FA. This transition can be quite arduous and time consuming as the jump from GA to FA is quite long. I'm going to assume that you don't have a lot of experience with the FAC process. If I'm wrong please accept my apologies. Here are some thoughts:

  1. Make sure you are familiar with the FA Criteria.
  2. Editors who are not major contributors to the article are discouraged from nominating articles at FAC. This is due to the fact that often questions of content can arise during the review process and if the primary editors are not involved then these questions can often go unanswered thereby wasting everyone's time. Also it is a matter of courtesy to allow those who have worked the hardest on the article the chance to nominate it and shepherd through FAC. If you do end up making a lot of tweaks and changes to the article as it journeys towards FA readiness then you could be considered one of the major contributors but I caution you not to nominate it until you meet that threshold. Major contributor status is a bit nebuluous but is primarily based on the number of edits you have contributed to the article. This can be deteremined by using this link: http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl Click on it, type in the article's name and off you go. When I look at this film using the tool it would be my opinion that the "major contributors" have at least 211 edits on this article.
  3. Another issue you will surely encounter at FAC is the use of non-free images. See criteria 3 in the FA Criteria. All non-free images that are included in the article must not only have non-free rationale but you will need to justify their inclusion in the article. I count six non-free images, that is probably too many for a Featured Article. That's it for now more to come hopefully over the weekend or early next week. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I get what you mean on non-free content images, but exactly how many do you have to have on the article. I noticed featured article Transformers (film) has about 4 non-free content images. So do I have to get rid of a few? If so, do I have to suggest which ones to get rid of on the talk page? Guy546(Talk) 18:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your question I'll echo and clarify what David Fuchs says below. As a general rule use of non-free images must show necessity. The number isn't as important as why they are included. If there isn't a very strong rationale for using the image in the article then it probably should be removed. With that in mind I think the discussion below is very much on point and resolving this issue will be one less hurdle to cross at FAC. I'll continue my review now.
  • Another aspect of the FA Criteria to keep in mind is stability. I see on the talk page that there have been several debates about content and especially plagiarism. I also see a few (not a lot) of reverts and undos in the article history. This can happen as the article evolves and improves so it's not something to be overly concerned about now, but given the highly visible nature of the article it will be important to maintain that stability.
Regarding the merits of the article:
  • The article is long, well over 100kb. While the 100kb threshold is a bit arbitrary and isn't a hard and fast ceiling, it is always good to find ways to tighten up the article, trim out unnecessary detail. Keep summary style in mind when reading and editing this article. Not all information is good information. I'll try to point out some areas where it could shortened.
  • In the Production section I would tighten up the origins sub-section. I think the three paragraphs could be trimmed to two and stripping out much of the vacillation between Battle Angel and Project 880. I think that information isn't really important to the article.
  • In the Development sub-section, watch use of words like "famed" and "renowned". These are peacock words that should be avoided. It also seems that the section evolves as it was written. Starting first with discussion about language and plants then to behind the scenes initial groundwork by Cameron, then to the odessy of it getting accepted by Fox, then to funding, then to promotional bragging about the film, and then to budget. Not sure that all of this information is a) necessary and b) fits into one sub-section. I think much has been said in the media about the film's funding and journey to production so that is important information. The work on the languages and botanical scientific studies could probably be trimmed down or eliminated.
  • There are quite a few two and three sentence paragraphs throughout the article. Could some of these be combined? This will help with readability and flow. It will also give the article a less choppy appearance.
  • The Box office sub-section is pretty detailed. I know that this is a big part of the film's story but it seems to get a little burdensome. Do we really need to know every market in which it is the top grossing film?
  • In my opinion the article's comparison with Titanic (regarding box office take) and discussion of the film surpassing Titanic at the box office is overdone, bordering on beating it to death. Between just the Box office and Performance analysis sub-sections I count 10 paragraphs in which the two films' box office performance is compared.
  • I think the title "Performance analysis" isn't the best. I think many readers (myself included) will interpret that it was referring to the actors' performances rather than the performance of the film at the box office. Could a bit of this information be folded into the Box office subsection and the rest scrapped?
  • I think the Critical reception section could be trimmed as well. For example, Bolivia's first indigenous president isn't a film critic is he? Why is he quoted in this article? Pick a few of the quotes to drive home the points. The best sources are the most visible (Chicago Sun Times, New York Times, Boston Globe), can we get away from some of the less visible media sources like io9 and The Tennessean? I'm looking for ways to trim up the article and make it more readable.
  • One sentence sections and paragraphs should be expanded or combined.
  • Sources, you will be asked about the reliability/credibility of some of the sources used in the article like: Bleeding Cool, Newsblaze, Moviehole.net, io9 to name a few. Steer as far away from blogs as possible. Make sure all the sources are formatted consistently. I see sources like # 19 and 62 that have no publisher, I also see some that have no accessdate. No need to italicize website names but you need to italicize all magazine and newspaper names. Towards the end of the references there are a few urls, no title, publisher or accessdate. These will need to be fixed. That's it for my review. Feel free to comment and ask questions. I'll try to watch this review since there is a lot of work being done on the article. Best of luck to you. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do a thorough prose review, I just don't have the time. What I read was pretty good but in an article of this length there are bound to be grammatical issues. I think overall the article is definitely better than a GA but still needs quite a bit of work to get to FA standards. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 23:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs
Reply I have gotten the first picture out of the article right away. I agree with what you say about the it being argued about the use of the former picture being a nuisance to the latter image. The latter image should stay, in my opinion, because it shows how they made the effect of the Na'vi possible. I may bring up the issue on the talk page to broaden the opinion to a wider audience, though. Guy546(Talk) 20:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with Guy about Avatarmotioncapture.jpg (the latter picture). Flyer22 (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since H1nkles brought it up, I want to second the comments about length. The issue to me isn't exactly how long the article is, but what is long. The article spends a bit too much time on critical reception and blow-by-blow box office analysis, which IMO is the chief section that should be trimmed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The length of the Performance analysis section has been brought up before, but it has also been trimmed since then. Most of the main editors of the article feel that it is important to keep and should not be trimmed too drastically. For example, I don't believe that it can be adequately summed up in just two or three paragraphs, though I believe I can trim some more. This is what I stated about the Performance analysis section in the GA review:

...This film's performance at the box office is far beyond the typical film box office performance, and many people have wondered just how it has been able to do what it has done performance-wise, including box office analysts. They have wondered so much that they have thoroughly weighed in on it; there are various other thoughts from them about this film's success, but I have not added those thoughts, because the section is long enough and already covers everything about its box office performance well. I am not seeing how it is "largely devoted to pointing out various estimates observers made ex-ante." I explained its existence earlier: "...I created it because the extent of this film's box office success has baffled most people. It seemed important to address how people thought this film would flop (like had been thought of Titanic), the box office predictions by box office analysts who were sure it would not flop, Cameron's take on all that, the box office analysts being stunned by just how successful this film has been at the box office, and the explanations they have given for its monstrous run. Not only is it notable, but I knew that people would particularly want to read all that."

People have often wondered what is behind this film's baffling success, even on this talk page, and heated debates about it continue on the Internet. The Performance analysis section gives them their answer. If you would rather it be renamed to Commercial analysis, as it seems you suggest, I am not too opposed to that title. But "Performance" seems clearer to me and covers more than just the concept of "commercial" success. But, really, how is either title too differently from the other? Is it because you feel that "commercial" can possibly limit some of the detail, and explain the popularity of the film quicker under that title? I have looked to see what can be cut from that section, more than once, before this GA review began, and everything there seems relevant to mention. But I will keep looking at it, and seeing if there is perhaps a paragraph that can be cut out or at least cut down. But that section is not much bigger than the Critical reception section. The box office analysts opinions about this film have been just as important as the critics' opinions about it.

Again, the Performance analysis section has been trimmed before. But I will go ahead and trim a little more of it, and think about retitling it. I don't find its heading confusing at all, though. The main editors of the article have left most of the structuring of that section to me, and I would like to tackle it some more. In fact, most of the main contributors of the article have sections that they mainly edit, so all us are really like pieces of a puzzle.
As for the size of this article, that has been brought up constantly (including by myself), and we are constantly trying to keep it under control. Flyer22 (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The film is epic and the article certainly is expected to be longer than the average film article. I felt as I read it that there were portions that were overdone or information that was unnecessary. The constant comparison to the box office performance of Titanic is an example. Some reference is expected but repeated discussion arching over two sub-sections seems a bit much. The title of the section makes sense when I step back and see the article from the bigger perspective so no worries there. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 23:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Size, like I said, is not an issue for me (you're talking to the guy who pretty much easily wrote the longest film FA. But to me, the issue is how the content is represented. There's lots of puffy quotations and peacock phrasings ("The film's revenues decreased by a mere 1.8%")—really, it needs some uninvolved editors with little film knowledge (or at least little Avatar knowledge) to come ready with a red pen and hacksaw. Cutting down the analysis section would also allow you to rearrange the article to place industry comments and forecasts before the actual numbers in Box office, which is a much more logical text flow. Really, the week-by-week stuff could be turned into a table (if it had to be kept) and spare readers from the tedium of repetitious phrasing. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I cut out more from the Performance analysis section, and rearranged a few of its bits. Is that good enough? Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also recently cut a few Titanic mentions; after reading that section again, with thought of the ways it is compared to Titanic, it was like beating a dead horse. It may still sound a little like that and need a bit more removal of the word Titanic, but having significant comparison to Titanic with this film cannot be helped. Flyer22 (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All left in [that section] seems pretty relevant and needed. I also retitled it to Commercial analysis, but now I see that H1nkles no longer objects to the previous title. Is it best to leave it titled Commercial analysis, since the Performance analysis title has been objected to twice, or should I just change it back? Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Critical reception section, I would not say any of that should be cut. That section was carefully designed by all of the main editors, especially by Bob K31416, due to long, heated discussions about it.[1][2][3] Eventually, we found a good balance. After the "entertainment paragraphs" (which is typical for the beginning of a critical reception section), Bob designed a "sociopolitical paragraph," a "similarities paragraph," and a "peer review" (thoughts from fellow directors) paragraph. This was done, because as the links show, everyone wanted so much covered in the Critical reception section, such as international reviews. We tried to address the most significant thoughts about the film. We also created the Themes in Avatar article to mostly take care of that. But if any of you have a better suggestion for that section, I am open to listening. I just have to see what Bob thinks. Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started looking at the Critical reception section for trimming. I would just chuck the last paragraph altogether, which is a sample of comments by some writers and directors. The comments don't seem to have much substance and they aren't necessarily representative of the general opinion of the writers and directors in the film industry. Maybe it could be condensed to a sentence and placed elsewhere. I'll be looking some more at the section. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I wouldn't be too broken up if you did that, Bob. It's just that the Critical reception section does not need any trimming, in my view; it is also the typical size that critical reception sections of epic blockbuster films are here at Wikipedia. I'm not sure whether or not the statements are representative of the general opinion of writers and directors, though it seems to be...at least in regards to the most prominent writers and directors in Hollywood. But, yeah, I am open to whatever you want to do to that paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have my heart set on cutting that paragraph if the Critical reception section isn't considered too long. : )
To the reviewers, regarding the length of the section, is that the general feeling here that it's the right size but some parts may need reconsideration for quality? In other words, I'm asking for guidance in how to approach modifying that section with respect to length. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, "it's not the length, mate, it's what you do with all them words". To me, collecting a bunch of quotes is absolutely worthless, which is why I would just axe that paragraph... it's not explaining why they thought it was the second coming of Jeebus. Not your fault, it's the source, but we should pick our sources carefully :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Naw, you're not sounding like a broken record, but maybe I'm at risk for appearing to be hard of hearing. Perhaps we should get rid of it. Its usefulness would be to give a general impression of how writers and directors in the film industry valued the film, or something along that line, but maybe it doesn't serve that function very well, especially since the movie got aced out (or rather, put into the hurt locker) at the Academy Awards presentation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, the last paragraph is a valuable addition to the Critical reception section. Trying to look at the section from an average reader's viewpoint, I would expect them to be curious about Cameron's prominent colleagues' take on his novel moviemaking, irrespective of Avatar's actual ranking at the Academy Awards. The paragraph's wording and sourcing is an important but secondary consideration as compared to its actual EV. Or am I wrong? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

←My issue is that it doesn't really add anything to critical reception (emphasis on critical.) The quotes they pulled sound like what goes in the trailers--"'Stunning', says Chad Sexington"; they aren't really representative of how the public or critical body appraised the work, and don't actually provide substance as to why these guys actually liked the movie. We should only be quoting people if they've got something of value to say here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, David. Also, I see Bob's point as well. I will be getting rid of the last paragraph, unless anyone else disagrees with me.... Guy546(Talk) 19:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, editor consensus seems to be against/iffy on removing that paragraph for now, judging by here and the talk page. I would suggest you talk it over more there first. Flyer22 (talk) 04:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about keeping just the first two sentences and the reference? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just replied on the talk page, but... I'm not really for two-sentence paragraphs. Remember, having "one-sentence paragraphs" was a criticism in this peer review. A two-sentence paragraph is not much better. Flyer22 (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Avatar_(2009_film)/archive1&oldid=1044077183"