This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs a lot of work. Lots of unreferenced sections.
Thanks,
Harizotoh9 (
talk) 19:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Here are some article that can be useful for citations.
Comments Hello, peer review isn't really designed to get other people to go off and do research on your behalf, it's really there to give comments on existing content. I'll do a brief review, but suggest you research for those additional citations yourself.
Lead could use a bit of expansion for an article of this size (see
WP:LEAD).
Thank you for your comments. I have started to implement some of your suggestions. I have removed the two images you've cited. Should they be outright deleted? The 6000 SUX picture is not used on any other article, and I can not think of any other article it could be relevant for. And the Melting man image is also used in
The Incredible Melting Man article. --
Harizotoh9 (
talk) 10:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Haven't had a look through the article yet, but
here is an interview with Miguel Ferrer that might prove useful for expanding it a little.
GRAPPLEX 22:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Reviewing it now, I can see it's still pretty rough round the edges. I'll not comb through the prose, then, as there'll likely be a good deal of work done before this goes to GAN/FAC.
Cast sections which simply list actors and roles are largely redundant to the plot summary, as the information is already imparted there. You'd be best expanding this to include real-word information about the casting process and the actors' preparation (
this might prove a useful example).
The "Production" heading has whole paragraphs lacking citation; the tag here is definitely warranted. If you're going to GA with this, it might be best to just strip out the unsourced stuff and add in anything you find from scratch; but for FA I would keep the unsourced stuff saved somewhere and attempt to specifically track down citations for it as you'll need that for comprehensiveness.
"Themes" is similarly lacking in references.
Counter to these two points; it's worth noting that the prose identifies the source of some of this information, it might be worth simply rewriting some of this to just use these mentions as in-line citations. If you have the commentaries and documentaries mentioned, it would be a good idea to make note of the times at which these points are raised, as providing time references for longer audio and video references is generally desired.
"Release" is very spartan. Unless it can be expanded I'm not sure it should be separate like this; "Release and reception" could provide a suitable merger.
When using Rotten Tomatoes for a film this old, it's worth making note that many of the collated reviews will be recent rather than contemporary.
I've already mentioned on the article's talk page, but the Susan Faludi quote is pretty irrelevant—it would be an important addition to
1980s in film or
Action film; but RoboCop is mentioned in passing in one brief aside alongside several other films, the comment is hardly a judgement on this film specifically so much as this film was rattled off in a list of several films being lumped together. I'd be surprised if there wasn't some relevant criticism of the film that could be used to replace it, but you'd really benefit from using criticism directly aimed at this film.
Given how short some of the sections are, it might be worth merging "Novelization", "Legacy" and "Remake" into one section under the title "Legacy". The remake stuff needs to be cited, but Total Film's website does have multiple news stories on the progress of the project so it should be manageable.
If you manage to expand and restructure this article while the peer review is still underway then drop me a talk message and I'll have another look at it more closely.
GRAPPLEX 17:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)reply