Wikipedia:Peer review/To Fly!/archive1

To Fly![edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I'm putting this on PR because it is an article I have largely expanded since the beginning of the second half of this year, with some minor fixes by other editors. I'm planning to put this on GOCE, knowing that I have put tons of grammatical mistakes there, and later nominate it for GA. Any comments on the prose, images, sources--anything-- are welcome. Thanks! Gerald WL 17:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TwoScars[edit]

I will look over the article in the next few days. Keep in mind that I know nothing about the film industry. TwoScars (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall[edit]

Quick first glance: Page Length = 104,408. If this was an article about a battle, it would be considered too long. However, I noticed that featured articles about films tend to be long, so perhaps that is not a problem.
Yeah, was expecting this to be brought up. Specifically this is a film that literally changed the whole cinema industry, so I think the length is justified.

I have a similar problem with writing too much, and I am almost always told to make the article smaller when it gets into the 90s in length. Looking at some of the other recent GA documentaries such as Honeyland, Amazing Grace (2018 film), and Mike Wallace Is Here—all are much smaller, and under 75. TwoScars (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well scope comes to mind. If the film has less coverage than say a major blockbuster, than there's no need to push all the way to 90. This film I think has sufficient coverage to warrant the 100,000 length. Going Clear (film) for example is around 200,000. Gerald WL 05:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of the exact rules for wikilinks, but "a new age has begun" in the quotebox wikilinks to "history of aviation", which is also wikilinked. "The Washington Post" is also wikilinked twice if you count the image caption.
I assume you use the highlight duplicate links tool, which I also used for this article. I don't think there's a problem with that, as I tend to only count duplicate links within the prose.
I've always been told that footnotes and citations are not necessary in the Intro and InfoBox—the main body should cover sources in those sections.
I've moved the infobox footnotes to the body, but I've kept the c (now the a) as many other FAs also put stylization notes at the lead.
Images look great, but are they OK to use? "To Fly (1976 short film).jpg" may need work.
I think they're OK, since they have sufficient commentary; mind specifying what needs work in the poster?

I don't have much experience with Fair use images. Shouldn't it be in Wikimedia Commons? In Wikipedia, the file mentions that the Uploader should add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in. TwoScars (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TwoScars, Wikimedia Commons is only for free images. I think the rationales are already fine, though I'll look at it later. Gerald WL 05:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Filming and Space sequence sections look long.
At a first glance yeah, but I think it's just the right amount of comprehensive. I've also broken down to several paragraphs so that it's not too long, something I'm still struggling with the Release section.

Overall Part II[edit]

Looking at the three recent GA documentaries, none use the US$ in the InfoBox. I see where they are footnoted, perhaps a different preference for WikiProject Film compared to WikiProject Military. In the recent (2020) Featured Article named Battle of Malvern Hill, the InfoBox and Intro have no footnotes. The Notes, Citations, and References are done in a different style than that used by the Film articles. Also in the External links, one can go to Wikimedia Commons to find related media. The article also uses "Main articles" and "Further information" to enable the reader to get more information in other articles rather than repeat details. Article size for the Battle of Malvern Hill is 77,353. TwoScars (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is no problem with US$ (in fact I prefer specifying as there are many kinds of dollars), and I've read countless FA articles that does such too. Interesting to read how different WikiProjects work differently. Gerald WL 04:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at three other recent GA documentaries such as Honeyland, Amazing Grace (2018 film), and Mike Wallace Is Here—they all have a similar organization: Synopsis, Cast, Production, Release, Reception, and Critical response. Your organization seems fine to me, but I don't know if there is a recommended organization for films. TwoScars (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well for WikiProject Film it depends on the films themselves. In this case, it'll be weird to have only two actors mentioned, as it'll be too short of a section, so I think it's fine to just list them in the production section. I decided to change "Critical response" to "Reviews" because the section also contains scholarly reviews. If you look through more film articles, it can be said that there's no specific structure. Gerald WL 04:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intro[edit]

Very first sentence is three or four lines long (depending on your screen width). Maybe it could be split.
Currently the entire first paragraph is really only three sentences.
I think it's fine, since it just has to give a compact description of the film, but I'm open to suggestions on what else to put.
Second paragraph also has some long sentences.
I've trimmed one of the sentences, but I think it's long enough for a summary of a relatively long section.
Second paragraph: "cameras" is misspelled.
Fixed.

That's it for now. Will continue later. TwoScars (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TwoScars, responded to all above. Gerald WL 17:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

For some reason unknown to me, Wikipedia expects a citation at the end of any paragraph and after any thing in quotes. I prefer to add citations and notes at the end of sentences because it makes it easier to read, but some people put them after commas.
The note (b) after the first sentence is good, because it covers all the debate over length. In the note, I would say something like "To Fly! runs 26 minutes and 51 seconds (48 seconds for the anniversary editon). Other sources misstate the running time by a few minutes." No need to say "indeed" or "official", and the last sentence should have all six citations for the sources that round too much. The correct number should be used first. TwoScars (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Partly done I separated the 26 minute sources with the rest since it'll be weird if the note went "Precisely it's 26 minutes and some sources misstated it as 26 minutes." Changed the "official" wording. Gerald WL 04:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After the first sentence, the first paragraph could be one more sentence something like: "The film begins with a hot-air balloonist ascending near Niagara Falls." Then continue the paragraph with what you currently have as a second paragraph: Then it moves to the history of aviation.
I disagree with this, since the film starts with Ezekiel ascending from Craftsbury, then on a voyage around the New England area all the way to New York. Gerald WL 04:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If all the detail in the first paragraph is going to be kept, then you need a citation at the end of the paragraph. Also, the second sentence needs "in": "It begins on July 4, 1831, in Craftsbury, Vermont, where...." Craftsbury is not really that close to Niagara Falls, is it?
Second point done. I don't think we need a citation since all the detail is clear in the film (WikiProject Film says because the films are the primary source themselves, they don't need citations unless its a sketchy claim). Also to make the paragraph less confusing, I added "ascends on a voyage around New England."

To add, the reason the Saturn IB claim is cited is because it is not directly described in the film. Gerald WL 04:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quote box needs a source listed and a citation.
I don't think so, since the quatrain is said in the film. Gerald WL 04:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I would keep the sentence: It says that the newfound vertical angle of the world "was like the opening of a new eye", allowing humans to reach places previously untouched and extend the human limits, an act once considered "godlike." If kept, it needs a citation for the quoted material.
See point above. Gerald WL 04:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do skyscrapers, horses, trains, and automobiles (better term than cars) need to be mentioned?
I think they must be mentioned since, in the film, they are an integral part to the development of aviation. About the "cars", the film itself refers to it as "the motorcar", and the Wikipedia article itself is Car. Gerald WL 04:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that airlines caused access to the American territory to expand westward. Railroads were more important when that expansion happened, and airlines did not exist yet.
In the film, during a chapter where we begin travelling westward, it says: "Once the shining sea of the West as limits and boundary, now [...] there's no longer the end of the line. [T]he world grows smaller, and Hawaii draws nearer all the time." I added "beyond the mainland" in the sentence to be clearer; there's no way the rails had an LA-Honolulu route at the time. Gerald WL 04:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Need some type of citation for the narration at the end and the sentences before it.
See points above. Gerald WL 04:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More tomorrow. TwoScars (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Production - Development and writing[edit]

Section is too long.
I broke the second paragraph to two and trimmed a bit, but other than that I think the length is sufficient to the coverage.
One citation of eight different non-consecutive pages at the end of a paragraph, bundling citations, is the style used 15 years ago. That citation style has caused some of the Warfare articles to be demoted. The MOS still lists bundling as OK, but it can cause problems if new material is inserted. In Warfare, your bundled citation 12 would need to be split to the appropriate sentences. I do not know if WikiProject Film will let you use bundling of citations.
I don't think I bundled a citation, as in placed multiple citations at one ref tag; mind clarifying TwoScars? Gerald WL 18:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

number 12 : Griffiths, Alison (June 11, 2013). "From Daguerreotype to IMAX Screen: Multimedia and IMAX at the Smithsonian Institution". Shivers Down Your Spine: Cinema, Museums, and the Immersive View. Columbia University Press. pp. 195, 219, 221, 223, 225, 227–229. ISBN 978-0231129893. --> This is used for the entire paragraph. Perhaps the first sentence of the paragraph is from only one of those pages, and maybe the second sentence is from another subset of those pages.

Resolved.

In the second paragraph, Conoco Inc. is Wikilinked after Conoco appears in the previous sentence.
Fixed.

Production - Filming[edit]

Too long and could use another image for those that have short attention spans.
Same reasoning as Development point 1. I changed the image to an image of one of the camera planes, if that resolves the attention span problem.
Second paragraph, last sentence, needs a space after "To Fly!,".
Done.
Fifth paragraph: Because of the nature of IMAX, an new set of filming rules were..... Replace "an" with "a".
Done.
Fifth paragraph: 5254, and merely use a standard Tiffen 85 filter. Replace "use" with "used".
Done.
Fifth paragraph: Shots lengths were long so that audiences can observe the entirety. Is "Shots" ok? "Shot"? "Shots' "? If you are using the word "were", shouldn't "can" be "could"?
I removed the sentence, as Post-production covers it more appropriately.
Sixth paragraph: The scene with a vertical view of New York City used a.... Saying "The scene" implies to me that I should already know about a view of New York City. Perhaps "A scene with a vertical view...." would be better.
Done.

Production - Space sequence[edit]

Too long and you can't have a one-sentence paragraph at the end.
Actually you can; I've done this on several articles, including the GA Jojo Rabbit.
Second paragraph: The IMAX nature meant that they could only film the space sequence at 6.... Spell out the six.
Done.
Third paragraph: "2 inches" should be "two inches". Use {{convert|2|in|cm|spell=in}}. Same for the "3 ft" that follows, but might want to use meters instead of centimeters.
Done. Thanks for pointing this-- didn't know there's a spell parameter.
Fourth paragraph: "Jim Palmer created the laser beam effects; he had experimented with various types of patterns pre-production." We have no idea who Jim Palmer is, and most people on the eastern side of the USA think of Jim Palmer as the All-Star pitcher for the Baltimore baseball team. Perhaps two sentences: Jim Palmer, a technician working with X, created the laser beam effects. He had experimented with various types of patterns pre-production. The "a technician working with x" part should be something that describes Palmer briefly.
Done.

More later. TwoScars (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Production - Post-production[edit]

Two huge paragraphs and a small one.
Second paragraph: The score was the first in hstory.... history
Done.
Second paragraph: "Because of the vast room for creativity they can pour into the sound due to the high technology, certain scenes in the film were made just for the audio experience, including the multi-screen scene where two jets cross each other, which exploits the surround nature of the sound system." This is a very long sentence that could be two sentences. On a first read, the reader may think that a comma should be between "creativity" and "they". It takes a second read to understand it.
I trimmed it, and separated the first sentence from the example.
Like other sections, there are a lot of names that are difficult to keep track of. If two or three people are very important, maybe it would help to have a photo of them somewhere.
I removed it as I don't think it's not really important.

Themes and style[edit]

Good citations.
Like

More later. TwoScars (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Release[edit]

First sentence: What year?
Added.
Good citations.
last line: asepct should be aspect.
Done.

Reception - Box office[edit]

Are the earnings cumulative—not for a year?
TwoScars, except for sentences about the first year, yes they're cumulative. Is there need for clarification in the section? Gerald WL 07:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Might be useful: ({{Inflation|US|20|1993|fmt=eq}}) The film's earnings spiked from US$20 million in 1993 (equivalent to $42 in 2023 in millions)
Added in footnotes, and with a little adjustments.
Awkward sentence: However, the film has seldom screenings in non-IMAX theaters, making it unpopular among filmgoers. Maybe: seldom been screened.
Done.

More later TwoScars (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reception - Reviews[edit]

A lot of material—does all of it need to be in?
I think it's the perfect amount of reviews to be cited. There are more in the newspaper archives, but they're either too simple or has repeated the same points in the other more suitable reviews.
First sentence has awkward wording.
Adjusted.
First paragraph, near end: "dreary" is not a good thing, and I would guess it is not the correct word.
Moved it to the back of the sentence with a "despite". The article quote is: "[IMAX's] output was largely divided between dreary educational documentaries such as 1976's To Fly! and 1984's Grand Canyon: The Hidden Secrets, and badly acted novelties such as the 40-minute Haunted Castle."

Reception - Audience response[edit]

Why is "ahhh"-s in quotes, but not oohs.
Added quotations.

Reception - Accolades[edit]

Why not list awards as of 2021?
The only accolades I can retrieve, after digging through online and offline resources, are only from the MFF official website, and there's no "as of" in the source.

Legacy[edit]

First paragraph: It was the top three reason people visit the city. -- What city?
Added DC.
Second paragraph: In 1995, the film was deemed a pioneer of the IMAX format, thus "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" by the US Library of Congress to be selected for preservation in the National Film Registry (NFR). Awkward wording.
Tweaked.
Image: whose IMAX aerial scenes where inspired by.... were instead of where?
Fixed.
If the film is in some type of a Hall of Fame, that should be mentioned in paragraph 3 of the intro too.
It's already in the intro: "...making it inducted into the National Film Registry and the IMAX Hall of Fame."

I believe I am done. It is an interesting article, and I want to see the film. I still think it is too long. I used to have software for checking two things: 1) making sure all the external links work; and 2) checking for copyright violations. Those have not been checked. TwoScars (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this amazing review! You caught many details I missed and it's better now. The film is still playing in Chantilly (too bad I'm on the polar opposite of America), but there's a VHS version online for free. I myself use the LaserDisc, and transferred it to my laptop to rewatch for this article.

For the external links and copyvio, I assume you meant this and this. The exlink checker shows two blues and one green, but manually checking them shows no problem. Earwig shows 36.3% "unlikely violation", with the detected similarities merely being the museum name, short quotes, and commonly-used phrases. Happy editing! Gerald WL 07:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]