Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Peer review/Jurassic Park (film)

Jurassic Park (film)

I've been cleaning up the article with the help of an excellent book from 1993 (so before it became a monstrous, no pun intended, hit) from the library, despite some pages about the pre-production having been torn out. I hope to gain advice on whether I really should cite pages or simply reference the book multiple times. Please give me some other advice too, because I can easily see this becoming FA. Wiki-newbie 20:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I haven't read through it yet, at a cursory glance I can see it relies pretty much on one reference. It would probably never get FA status with just one reference.A mcmurray 22:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might have to strengthen the fair use rationales. These need to be (re)written: Image:Jurassic_Park_poster.jpg, Image:Jurassic_Park_screenshot_3.jpg, Image:JurassicParkcast.jpg.--Supernumerary 00:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where I should leave my comments, but at a brief glance, the first thing I noticed was the "differences from the novel" section. I think it would be good to find information as to why Spielberg changed what he did, or why David Koepp changed it (since he wrote it). Also, I think it would be good to get some other sources, it will help with the neutrality of the article. That's all for this second. Please move my comment to the appropriate place if it happens to be in an incorrect one. Thanks. Bignole 00:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite neutrality, which is a prose issue, but certainly verifiability. Wiki-newbie 18:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erikster

I would suggest doing something about the T-rex image in the Plot section, as it's been pushed below the Infobox Film template on my screen. This could be handled by placing Production as the lead section, which would put the Plot section far enough below to display images without a problem.

I'm unsure, readers tend to want to know the plot first. Production proceeds to deconstruct it. Wiki-newbie 18:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "Dinosaurs featured" should be re-titled "Featured dinosaurs". Also, in that section, this sentence doesn't make sense: "A dog was used for when it kills a Gallimimus." In what context -- body, sound?

I think the sentence is fine given the sound information before it.

What does it mean, though? Did they use a dog's carcass for the Gallimimus when the T-rex kills its prey? Is that the implication? It seems like that would be controversial. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Wiki-newbie 20:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Marketing section obviously needs references, though I'm thinking that the Toys and Merchandise subsection could be written more succinctly. There is a whole paragraph about trading cards that could be summed up in one or two sentences, and the same treatment could possibly be given to other merchandise details.

That section was dumped from the book's article, which lacks references really. I'm thinking of jettisoning it all together. Wiki-newbie 18:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the Reaction section has some weasel wording -- "most well-known films of all time", "first notable film", "many consider it to be a milestone in special effects history", and "film's influence on dinosaurs in popular culture was also significant". There needs to be evidence to back these statements. Being familiar with the film and its popularity at the time, I don't disagree with the statements, but someone who has never heard of Jurassic Park might not understand the claims made. The Reaction section could use an expansion tag to grow up specific reviewers' criticism, positive or negative. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a section I've not really touched since I've been sprucing up the Production information. Wiki-newbie 18:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if your focus is on Production at the moment, I'll offer some criticism. Is there a year or period of time in which Crichton conceived of JP? Was it a recent idea or something he's been wanting to do forever? Also, you should precede Malia Scotch Marmo with "Screenwriter" just to make it immediately clear who she is. Also, you mentioned that she deleted Ian Malcolm, but he's obviously in the film. At what point was he re-added? Another sentence: "...but fortunately for the crew they only lost one day of shooting." Sounds a little too casually written, any way to sound more objective, unless the reference specifically said that? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is difficult as I've said the book has missing pages, and the DVD is exclusively on the special effects. I have Joseph McBride's book on Spielberg, but I'm unsure considering he supplies a lot of references, to which I'm unsure of citing his book or his sources. Wiki-newbie 20:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Raglan

I've only glanced briefly at the article. Relying on only one reference is a major flaw. A film this recent will have a whole slew of available informational resources. The article as a whole seems a little disorganized; for example, the "Production" section should immediately follow the synopsis. The "Reaction" section is amazingly skimpy; a brief critical response paragraph or two needs to be added, with negative and positive reactions from notable reviewers. And while short, this section is full of unsupported claims that have to be sourced. In fact, the majority of the article is missing citations. I think the article contains interesting details and information, but in my opinion still needs plenty of work to bring it to GA status.-Hal Raglan 18:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been referencing pages of Shay and Duncan's book for verifiability. Note the film is over 13 years old, so internet references will be hard to find. I have another book that is about Spielberg overall, though it does mention stuff on the reaction, which I could use as additional sources. I have also used up the DVD. Wiki-newbie 18:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be many, many print references available, which are usually more reliable than internet sources. I know that Cinefantastique and Cinefex devoted issues to this film; both of these magazines usually have outstanding, extremely comprehensive "Making-of" articles. Many other similar magazines (such as Starlog) will also have done cast and crew interviews, with associated production detail information, for this film. It was a huge production, much hyped at the time, so it really should be no problem finding such publications are your local library. If you are unable to adequately source the article at the moment, you might want to hold off on trying to get this to GA or FA status until you do.-Hal Raglan 19:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are these magazines avaliable in the UK? Wiki-newbie 19:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are all U.S. publications, unfortunately, so if they are available in the UK I supposed they'd probably be for purchase, at high prices, at stores that sell "collector's publications". Do libraries there keep copies of such genre magazines? If so, I'm sure Starburst undoubtedly had articles regarding this film. If there were similarly-theme UK magazines being published in 1993 (sorry, I can't think of any titles), they also might be worth taking a look at. Over the weekend, I'll look thru what I have at home and see if I can help with the article's citation problems.-Hal Raglan 20:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so, it'd be great to have your contributions. Wiki-newbie 20:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LordHarris

Hi Ive had a good look at the article. Some of the sections like production were excellent, well referenced, others not so much. These are some of my thoughts, though I havent made any changes to the article. I would be willing to help, as I have Joseph Mcbrides, Steven Baxters, Ian Freers, Tony Crawleys and warrens bucklands books on Spielberg and his movies. If you want me to look through them for a particular piece of info or a reference, then I'd be more than happy to.

1.) The Plot section was concise but needs to be rewritten in some places. The last paragraph is I think too long and about several different parts of the plot, could be expanded.

The previous one was quite long. I've tried my best to summarise it. Wiki-newbie 18:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2.) The Changes from the book section really does need more references and some of the statements seem a bit subjective e.g. "in the movie Hammond is a kindly old man". Well I think Spielberg gives him that personna on the outside, but inside he is a ruthless, angry businessman, especially when he realises that JP is no more... Also it states many other minor characters are also different, perhaps a sentance or two on one or two "e.g.s"?

3.) Production section could do with an image, maybe a screenshot from dvd special features?

4.) Marketing section needs a lot of work. I agree with previous statements but am not sure its best to get rid of it all together, as the consumer marketing of JP has had a major impact on modern movie consumerism. I did think that there was too much info on toys and merchandise. Perhaps it could be written more concise, to say two paragraphs and then referenced.

5.)Reaction section, needs expanding and a reference for the criticism. Also with the academy awards, it only states those that it won. Did the film win all of the awards it was nominated for, or were there some it didnt win? Perhaps include nominations if there were any?

6.) The Parodies section needs a short opening sentance to the link for main article e.g. JP has had an impact on popular culture and has been parodied etc.

Overall good beginnings of an FA article! LordHarris 15:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Should I merge the changes from the book with Production? Could come across as original research. See talk page. WikiNew 20:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is GA guys! WikiNew 18:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]