Wikipedia:Peer review/Jaws (film)/archive2
I'm hoping that this article is very close for FA status, so I'm putting it up for peer review now. I will add more information to the DVD release section and possibly some deleted scenes information, but other than that I think it covers all the bases. I apologize in advance if I don't respond to comments for awhile, since I'm about to be hit by Hurricane Ernesto in two days. Thanks.--Dark Kubrick 02:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Issues: I'd replace the word "Movie" wherever it appears with the word "Film". It's more professional-sounding. The casting information needs referencing, such as Dreyfuss thinking one of his own performances was terrible. "The scene where Hooper discovers Ben Gardner's body" is mentioned but I wasn't sure who Ben Gardner is. It might also benefit the reader to explain briefly what 100 Years... 100 Movies and 100 Years... 100 Thrills are. I'd question "Reviews of the film were almost unanimously positive, evidenced by the 100% rating at Rotten Tomatoes". Rotten Tomatoes might be a good tool for contemporary movies, but with older stuff they don't usually have everything. The note at the end of the criticism section that the shark looks fake and that its a widespread opinion needs a reference. The Moby Dick stuff needs referencing too. Differences from the novel and sequel sections are listy. If we must have a sequel section, I'd model it after those in FAs Halloween (film) or Night of the Living Dead. Still, the topic is featured distworthy, and the article as is is pretty close, with the issues above probably easily fixable. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I've dealt with all the issues here, except the last two. What particular information about Moby Dick do I need to cite? And how would I change the differences from the novel section into prose? Thanks.--Dark Kubrick 12:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I've cited a few sentences dealing with Moby Dick and rewrote the sequel section into prose. If the references are looking really screwed up (as they are all over Wikipedia), add this: ?action=purge to the address bar when viewing the page.--Dark Kubrick 18:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't mean to quibble, but Jaws was actually the first movie to make over $100 million in domestic rentals (i.e., the amount returned to distributors from U.S. and Canadian theaters as the distributors' share of the box office take) versus simple domestic grosses (ticket sales). The film's actual box office gross was closer to $170 - 180 million or so, I believe. The $85 million noted as The Godfather's box office gross was actually that film's domestic rental performance, which means it made well over $100 million in ticket sales, also. Prior to 1993, Variety, the film industry standard publication, used to report strictly domestic rentals as a gauge of a movie's performance, and at the end of the year would print a listing of all titles that had made $1 million dollars and more returned to distributors during the previous 12 month period. The magazine switched to listing box office grosses in 1993, presumably because everyone else by that time was doing so. Anyway, I think the article should be changed to reflect this. A good source of domestic rental/domestic gross information throughout the years is Michael Gebert's "The Encyclopedia of Movie Awards", but there should be plenty of other reliable sources that detail this info.Hal Raglan 03:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oops, I forgot to add that both Variety (at the end of 1975) and Gebert's book (which provides data from Variety archives) noted that Jaws was the first film to make over $ 100 million in domestic rentals.Hal Raglan 03:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Quibble this is not. I am very glad you brought this to my attention, as I wish this article to be fully complete and accurate regarding the movie. I've changed the section and added a reference to reflect your suggestion. Thanks.--Dark Kubrick 16:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)