Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/The Beautician and the Beast/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Beautician and the Beast

[edit]
Previous peer review
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

Hello everyone. I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for FA. However, I have never nominated a film for a FAC so I would greatly appreciate any feedback on how to improve the article further. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash

[edit]

After reading the article thoroughly, I find the prose satisfactory (and I'm pretty sure all statements match their sources) without any comments to make. Just add the release date to the lead. Once the article is at FAC, you can expect comments from me (if the prose has substantially changed by then). --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Shahid

[edit]

Excellent article. My comments:

  • Lead:
  • "her career in television to one in film" - I'd write something easier -> "from television to film"
  • "Dalton and Drescher received a more mixed response" - "a more mixed" is vague.
  • I just do not understand the use of "a more" - more than what? More than the film itself? I mean, is "mixed" assumed to be one level higher than negative on a sort of virtual assessment scale? If so I'd just say "their performances were better received although...". For some reason mixed does not feel like a natural description of improvement over negative. Anyway, "a more" sounds a little informal to me. But it's just me, if you think it's okay then really no problem. Shahid • Talk2me 22:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that mixed reviews are more positive than strictly negative reviews as it implies a mixture of both positive and negative reviews. Either way, I have removed the "more" part to just say that Drescher and Dalton have received a mixed response. Aoba47 (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critics wrote that the film deals with the theme of " - this should be more about the film - maybe change to "according to critics, the film..." I'm not even sure that the film's theme should be attributed to critics. You could say, "the film dealt with... and was said to be (or believed by critics to be) inspired by..."
  • Revised. I still think it is necessary to attribute this information to the critic so it is not represented in Wikipedia's voice as an outright fact about the film when it is really critical analysis instead. Aoba47 (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Production:
  • I would remove the links for supporting and starring roles.
  • Themes:
  • "Critics have cited The Beautician and the Beast as an adaptation of the fairy tale Beauty and the Beast, and the film has also been described as inspired largely by The Nanny." - something doesn't work for me here. First, I'd say "also" is redundant (it almost always is in my book and I would often avoid using it so maybe it's just me). Same with "described as inspired", though perfectly acceptable, is not very easy for some. Then "has been described" - by whom? By the same people, or some other critics? Did the same critics think it was inspired by both BATB and The Nanny?
  • "Its focus on gender and cultural differences was likened to the stage musicals The King and I and The Sound of Music (1959)" - the focus was likened to The King and I and The Sound of Music, or the film itself was likened because of its focus? :) I'd say "Its focus on... led some critics to compare/liken it to..." or "Due to its focus..., it was likened to".
  • Same with "Katrina's relationship with Alek was likened to the play Romeo and Juliet" - the comparison is not between the relationship and the play, but the relationship and the other relationship in the play.
  • I wouldn't link parody.
  • Release:
  • "It received a wide release on... and shown in … theatres" - tense changed and no link to the subject; I'd add "was" before shown.
  • "attributed the poor box office to" - maybe "poor box office returns" is better?
  • Critical reception:
  • "and cited the film was a poor example of" - better "cited the film as" or change "cited" to "believed"
  • "Erin Donnelly included Joy and Boris as a romantic comedy pairings who lacked chemistry" - either change to "pairing" or change the entire thing to "included Joy and Boris among those romantic comedy pairings who/which..." (not sure if it should be who or which when modifying pairings).
  • "Although he believed Drescher was too old to play an ingénue character type, Emanuel Levy praised her as..." - I would switch the order of the clauses -> "Emanuel Levy praised her as..., although he believed Drescher was too old to play an ingénue character type". Either way the first clause is too long to keep the pronoun so distant from its reference and have Levy's name revealed only in the second clause.
  • Maitland McDonagh not linked.
  • "the Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actress for the 18th Golden Raspberry Awards; she lost to Demi Moore for her performance in the 1997 film G.I. Jane." - I'm not sure it's very relevant who eventually got it, but in any case I wouldn't say "she lost", you could say "which went to" or something of this sort. Shahid • Talk2me 10:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed as it is not necessary, especially since this award is more of a negative thing so it does not seem entirely appropriate to mention someone else getting it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments so far! You have helped me to improve the article a lot. Apologies for my silly mistakes. I just have one quick question about one of the comments. I am sure it is clear, but I'm just being dense right now lol. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vedant

[edit]

Hey, Aoba47. I'm not sure if I'll be able to go through the entire article but here's by comments on the Lede and the Reception section:

  • Do we really need the names of all the supporting cast in the opening paragraph. It just feels a little crowded at this point.
  • Shouldn't it be "under the false assumption that she is a science teacher"?
  • The last paragraph is a little incoherent. The sentences don't necessarily follow each other and it just disrupts the flow. Maybe if we could follow the opening sentence with a crisp bit on what aspects (other than the performances) were praised and/or criticised. And then have the "Dalton and Drescher received a mixed response for their performances. Drescher was nominated for the Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actress for her role" bit be made into one sentence?
  • Thank you for raising this point and providing suggestions. I have always struggled with writing the lead so apologies for that. I have tried to revise it, but I would be more than happy to work on it further. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And see if this makes any sense: When you highlight something that the critics have said about a film, one usually excepts something of value to come out of the statement, something that a general observer would have probably missed out. But the bit about the themes is a very general statement and barely generates any interest. The producer herself talks about the themes and there have to be more insightful things that the critics must have said. Even the film's similarities with other films for instance. But to say that critics wrote what the film's theme was, is just a little odd IMO.

More to follow. VedantTalk 09:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/The_Beautician_and_the_Beast/archive3&oldid=960430086"