Luster (film) edit
This peer review discussion has been closed.
- 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 January 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because ultimately I'd like to get articles for each of director Everett Lewis's films to good article status or better, although I'm not sure if the information is out there for some of them. I've scoured the Internet pretty bare to come up with what I have for this film so I wanted someone to review it against the GA criteria before I nominate it.
Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: The article gets more interesting toward the end because the lower sections have more variety and more complicated ideas. The cast list is a bad way to start, and the plot is dull, though that's not your fault. The most interesting section is "Critical response", and it made me want to know more about artistic intent and casting choices. The two-word quote "infuse queerness" isn't directly sourced, but perhaps the source has more information about the writer-director's hopes for the film. It would be interesting to know if he thought those hopes were realized. To make the article good, I'd suggest developing these interesting sections and placing less emphasis on the dull ones.
Lead
- "infuse queerness" - This looks like a direct quote that needs an in-line citation to the source.
- "a number of non-heterosexual actors and used music by a number of queer punk bands" - A vague term, "a number of" is used twice here. Delete both instances. Replace with the exact numbers if known.
Cast
- It looks odd to start the article with a list. Perhaps Plot should precede Cast.
- Use bolding only for the title in the first sentence. Don't use double bolding; that is, don't bold the wikilinks, which are already bold.
Plot
- One-sentence paragraphs are generally deprecated. The solutions are either to merge or expand.
- "Stoked" - Slang?
- "head back to the store, just in time to head out to" - Repetition of "head". Suggestion: "just in time to go to"
- "who, sadly, leaves friend Alyssa behind" - It's unclear why this is sad.
- "Jackson runs into Billy" - Slang. How about "meets"?
- "changes the sex of the subjects" - Gender?
- "Alyssa takes her photos of Jed to a gallery." - This is another one-sentence paragraph, and two more occur later in this section.
- "before the tape even ends" - Delete "even".
"the results -- while somewhat uneven -- really do pull" - Use en dashes instead of double hyphens.
Production and artistic intent
- with a number of LGBT actors - Delete "a number of". Make specific if possible.
DVD release - Like extremely short paragraphs, sections this short are deprecated. You might be able to merge it with the section above.
References
- The dates in the references should be consistently formatted. For example, citation 2 includes one date in yyyy-mm-dd and one in d-m-y format. You can use either one you prefer, but they should be consistent.
General questions
- Did the film make money? How much did it cost to produce? Did it have a run in movie theaters, or was it only released on DVD?
- Can you include any further information about casting? Other than LGBT credentials, what else was considered? Were any of the actors heterosexual?
- I don't know if any critics or cast members or others involved discussed this in an available source, but if an actor is pretending, what difference does it make who the actor or actress is in real life? Could a non-LGBT group do a production like this just as well? Did the director say anything in public about questions like this?
I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I know it's odd to have the cast list first, but I did that per a note on the talk page with someone saying that all of the names in the plot section made for a confusing read. So I moved the cast list up and explained who the various people were in hopes of sorting out the confusion. As I mentioned, I've pretty much tapped everything I can find regarding the film so if it's not in the article it's probably not available. Assuming that stylistic issues are addressed, do you think there's enough here to meet the good article criteria? Otto4711 (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- To be honest, I was ducking that question because I'm not sure. It depends on the interpretation of "broad in coverage" and "illustrated where possible". Some articles are probably too slight to become GA. I'm not saying this is necessarily one of them, but I wouldn't be surprised if another editor said it was. Finetooth (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)