Wikipedia:Peer review/Dreamgirls (film)/archive1

Dreamgirls (film)

I am trying to make this article look well before FA nomination. What tips or advice should I have to mold this article into FA? This article has been peer reviewed before by the films committee. Real96 02:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article is a GA. Real96 02:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a lot of pictures. I suggest removing the posters of Foxx and Beyonce as well as Glover. Those don't seem to illustrate any particular point. Wiki-newbie 10:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you ask the League of Copyeditors for assistance. There's a lot of trivial things in the main flow of things - like Will Smith's 'exclusive contract' with Paramount? How is this relevant to the film? -Malkinann 10:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erikster

COPIED FROM HERE

There's a Ratings table hanging out in the Plot summary section. Is the table really notable enough for inclusion?
"Casting notes" and "Production notes" seem like odd section headings, especially with the latter being under "Production history". Can either of these be renamed?
Citation for the Los Angeles premiere (seconds sentence in Reception) would be nice.
Maybe I'm being too picky, but I think there should be references for the Awards subsection. The last three paragraphs in that subsection don't appear fully cited.
"Related promotions and products" seems oddly placed under Reception, though I don't know where else it could go. I'd suggest re-titling it as "Marketing", maybe.
The Cast section is placed so deeply in the article. Why not place it, at the very least, before Reception?
Not everything in "Allusions to factual events" is cited. I don't know if this used to be a trivia section, but I agree with the above sentiment that it seems too listy. Re-writing it in prose would be nice.
Is it necessary to have such a long main Awards section? I would suggest removing minor awards ("Syracuse Post-Standard"?) and possibly merging the rest of them into the Awards subsection under Reception. Or just make a stand-alone Awards section written in prose. Just my opinion -- the list of awards just seems long to me.
I strongly recommend applying the Cite news and Cite web templates to the references in this article. With the template, the fully-exposed links will be linked through the title.

I would also recommend, after applying the templates, that you place {{reflist|2}} under Notes to create two columns for the references.

My apologies if I sound too critical; the article is really quite well-done. I remember visiting it a few months ago before the film came out, and I could tell someone was devoting a lot of time to it. Glad to see that it's remained intact ever since. Definitely is approaching FA status. I'll have to actually read the content (just kind of skimmed this time, pointed out structural things) and get back to you on the writing. From what I noticed, all the references and punctuation was in place, which makes me a very happy editor. Cheers, and good luck continuing to build it up. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we use the cite news template. In addition, I tried separating the links into two categories, but the links overlapped. Real96 06:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]