Wikipedia:Peer review/Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/archive1
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed edit
- 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 June 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
O.K., so as a Christian I'm against the subject of this film, but I'm bringing this to attention because of its 112K page size and 170 refs (as of typing).
This will look good as an FA when it arrives on DVD; for now, our focus is to simplfy it down to a manageable ±55K.
Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 19:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: for clarification. The peer review request is made by a user who, as far as I can see, has played no part in the editing. I am confused by the wording of the request: "...so as a Christian I'm against the subject of this film", and I don't understand the sentence: "This will look good as an FA when it arrives on DVD; for now, our focus is to simplfy it down to a manageable ±55K". Who is the "our" in "our focus"? My review is aimed at effecting general improvements to the article, rather than assisting a particular agenda. Before I offer my comments, would Sigrandson care to amplify on whose behalf he/she is acting? Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Brief Ruhrfisch comment: Thanks to Brianboulton for agreeing to review this. I had read most of it before I saw this notice. The main problems I see with the article are structure and level of detail. This is an article about a controversial film. It should be structured similarly to other film articles. I note Triumph of the Will is about a 1930s controverial documentary film and a FA (although an older FA with fewer references than would be required today), and would be a useful model.
This article does not follow the recommended structure of Wikipedia:WikiProject Films: When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. I note Sicko is a recent controversial documentary film, which although only B class, follows this much more logical and useful structure.
Finally, I think a brief plot summary and cast list would summarize much of the information precisely, then the various controversies could be addressed. As it is there is a real mish-mash with a bit of plot, film criticism, the rebuttals, the counter-arguments to the rebuttals, and then some more plot and it starts all over. I imagine streamlining the structure would avoid much of the repetition and pare it down some. I also think some of the details are unnecessary and repetitive - how many examples are needed for some of these points? Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
PS My understanding of Slgrandson's comment was that the film is coming out on DVD (delayed with the lawsuit) and the hope was to get this to FA as a resource when it is widely available on DVD.
Brianboulton comments: I thank Ruhrfisch for that clarification, though it still seems strange that the article's editors are uninvolved in the peer review request. However, mine not to reason why, I suppose.
- Structure: I echo the gist of what Ruhrfisch has said. The structure needs to reflect that this is an article about a film, rather than generally about the intelligent design controversy. I have to say that I found the article absorbing—it is very well written—but I did lose my way somewhat. Many editors have worked on this article, and that might explain the looseness of structure. With 7500+ words of "readable text", and probably another 1500 in the boxed quotes, there is much scope for slimming down the content, and I hope that this can be done without affecting the generally high quality of the prose.
- Neutrality: This is a problem. Although some attempt has been made to present a balanced view, the impression I had after reading through was of a fairly strong POV against the film and the viewpoint it espouses. This feeling emanates from the very first line, where the film is described as "controversial", rather than as a film which has caused controversy. Statements (uncited) such as "The film refers to evolution as 'Darwinism', a term which has long been abandoned by most biologists as modern theory does not rely on Darwin's ideas alone" indicate an editorial voice, and there are many similar "statement" sentences, most of them admittedly cited. I think it essential, if the article is to be presented to FAC, that it comes across in a more objective manner.
- Multiple citations: There are many instances of single statements being cited to several sources. I don't think that this is generally necessary; mostly, a single reliable source should be sufficient. Sometimes two may be justified, but strings of reference numbers seriously interfere with the readability of the text. Also, there are more than 20 citations in the lead, to statements which are generally covered in the main text, where they are cited again.
- Citation formats: Some of the web citations are incorectly formatted.
- MOS: I fixed a number of date links and other minor matters. I think there are more. Not sure about dashes and nbsps - I think a wiki style expert should give the amended article a careful scrutiny.
Brianboulton (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)