Wikipedia:Peer review/Che (film)/archive1

Che (film)

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

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of work has gone into it and I would welcome any suggestions and/or contributions to help promote it to GA status.

Thanks, J.D. (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary comments from Natural Cut: I only got through the screenplay section, but I'd like to give you some feedback on that as I think it needs some work. Was the hiring and releasing of Terrence Malick before, during or after the holding of the rights to Jon Lee Anderson's book? I was going to move the part about the book to the beginning of the paragraph but wasn't sure where the two fit timeline-wise?

I checked and the part about the book belongs at the beginning of the paragraph so I moved it.--J.D. (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the paragraph about the documentary feels a little disjointed to me. There's a lead sentence about making a documentary out of the interviews, but the focus of the paragraph doesn't seem to be primarily on the documentary itself. Or were all of the things the paragraph integrated in the documentary? If so, it should be made clear in the first sentence that the documentary is about his experiences. Hope this initial bit helps. Natural Cut (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work so far. I moved that bit about the documentary to another place that was more appropriate. Thanks for spotting this.--J.D. (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry J.D. I completely forgot about your article. I had meant to give it a good read through and offer more suggestions. You can expect that to come in the next 24 hours or so. Natural Cut (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. Whenever you can get to it. There is certainly no rush.--J.D. (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, today was my day off so I got to sink my teeth into it. I bolded the titles of the split films since it's one article now. In the second paragraph of the lead, I'd enumerate how many markets the roadshow edition went into and explain how/why it was released 'both as a single film and as two separate films'.

In the development section, the quote from Benicio is certainly useful to describe his opinion of Che but not appropriate where it is. It comes across as pushing a certain POV of who Che was. I similarly noticed on first glance that you open with one reviewer's opinion in the both the NYFF and general reviews sections; probably want to incorporate them into the text (particularly for the reviews).

Fixed. I removed the quotes and incorporated them into the text.--J.D. (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 'top 10 lists' section should go entirely or at the least be incorporated elsewhere as a single sentence ('It was on several critics' top ten lists...'). On looking at the TOC for the article, 'reviews' feels like it need a more descriptive title in lieu of several sections describing critical reaction but I'm ambivalent about what to do.

I changed it from "Reviews" to "General reviews" until I can think of something better. I merged the "Top 10 lists" into the reviews section.--J.D. (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check Wikipedia policy on such heavy reliance on non-free images.

Yeah, I have a feeling that a lot of those will have to go at some point.--J.D. (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a reference from someone's personal site on blogspot.com, which I believe violates WP:SPS. Careful of this with all of your sources.

Back to the development section. The language of the first sentence under 'screenplay' really feels like the introductory sentence for the section since it describes how the project was conceived. I was going to move it myself but didn't want to mess up the chronology: They spent three years researching the film it says, and I was unclear on whether this overlapped with the two years where they held the rights to the book.

The financing section would flow better if it chronicled their efforts to procure funds rather than starting right off with saying it had no American support and Soderbergh's 'they'll be sorry' bit. The following sentence about interest drying up when it was decided to use Spanish needs to be completely redone to explain why the language decision was made and then explain how interest in the Anglophone world (or just the US, it doesn't say) dried up. I'll let you work it out.

I'm curious what people other than the director thought of having the films in such different formats, especially where he mentions Bruckheimer. If there's any information on what his financiers (or even critics later on) thought of this, it would be interesting to include.

Principal photography, paragraph 3: 'In keeping with the Marxist notion of advancement through two conflicting ideas or dialectics, the film is set up as a contrast' - I'd rephrase that so it says it's a tribute to the notion or however you want to put it. It can be read as saying they were trying to make a Marxist film, though I know what you mean by it.

Paragraph 6: I added a sentence about how the things discussed were intended to reflect Che's personality and beliefs. I was also going to mention that they tried to make the movie flow based on the information about improvising and using natural light but didn't want to violate WP:SYNTH if this wasn't the intent of the information. Also, if there was any specific reason for needing to shed 35 pounds (Che being ill etc.) you could mention that.

I merged the two films' synopses into a plot synopsis section and {{main}} templates. Didn't read them very carefully due to time constraints.

Under distribution, I did a little tidying up on the roadshow release but the article again doesn't state where/why it was released as one or two films when it was expanded.

Screenings in Argentina: Were the posters put up because the local officials embraced the film, or was it just a marketing move paid for by the distributor? I'm guessing it was the former from the way it reads, but further information on why it was done (as well as opposition, if any) would help.

I again would have liked to go into further detail in some areas but think I gave you enough to work with for now. You clearly care a lot about the subject. :-) Natural Cut (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Narco: You should decide if it's going to have one, two, or three articles per the merge tag. I'd say one unless there's significant information pertaining to each part that's separate from the other part. Narco (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you check out the Discussion page, there is a call for a merge and so far there appears to be a general consensus to basically delete the two separate articles for The Argentine and Guerrilla as they contain all the info that is already in the main Che article.--J.D. (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I mainly wanted to save people like Natural potential aggravation in the event that there was a restructuring to accommodate information from those articles or relegate it into them. Narco (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated The Argentine & Guerrilla (film) for deletion, as they have been merged, and are no longer necessary. All of the relevant information from both has been incorporated. Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]