Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Peer review/Trembling Before G-d
Originally starting improving this to win my head to head at the LGBT WikiProject's Jumpaclass, but now I figure it might be cool to make it FA. What do I need to do? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The 'Awards' section could be turned into prose, instead of its current table format. LuciferMorgan 01:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If possible, I'd like a little more info on the subjects of the film itself, and some background on different views vs. gay men and gay women. One thing that struck me when I saw it was that none of the women showed their faces or let themselves be identified. I think that should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Kolindigo 19:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Firstly Dev, you've done a good job on this article. Congrats and keep it up! :-)
- The lead-in could use some work in:
- It should summarize the entire article. If the rest of the article was removed, it should be able to stand on its own as an article.
- It needs its sources cited like the rest of the article.
- [the film] did reasonably at the box office, using dollar amounts would be better here. Let the reader decide how good or bad it did. It did reasonably at the box office compared to what? Did it do reasonably well for a gay movie? For a Jewish movie?
- The film follows several gay and lesbian Orthodox Jews as they went about their lives and interviewed both rabbis and psychotherapists about Orthodox attitudes towards homosexuality. Because of these attitudes, while DuBowski met hundreds of homosexual Jews over six years, only a handful agreed to be filmed. What was their attitudes? Where they embarrassed about their beliefs? Is that what DuBowski theorized the reason they did not want to be interviewed?
- A section on homosexuality and Orthodox Judaism would be helpful for the reader to understand the movie's subject matter.
- I would like to see more criticism and praise for the movie.
- Has the movie actually made an impact on the Jewish and gay communities?
- There is also a mini-documentary about reactions to the film around the world and what happened to the people who were featured in the documentary. Maybe we could talk briefly about this documentary as well? -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 16:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Two more things:
- Turn "Awards" section into a list instead of a table (I like how Brokeback_Mountain#Awards does it).
- The awards need to be cited. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 17:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- The awards section in brokeback mountain looks horribly untidy. I prefer the other one. Anyway, I checked out the stuff you mentioned in the lead, and haven't done anything where the information you asked for may be found in the body of the article, but added everything else. A section on background has been added for homosexuality and Judaism. I will add more criticism as I find it as you have suggested, but hasn't the impact on the jewish and gay communities been described in the Reception section? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Dev, you've done a great job with this article -- I'm going to have to add it to my Netflix queue now :) The background section was a very good touch, nice job. You're right on the awards section. The awards section just looked funny because my screen because my screen is quite large and it took up 30% or so of the width. From Wikipedia:Lead section: "the lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article" and "[the lead] should be carefully sourced as appropriate". I understand this to mean we should add sources in the lead-in regardless if it is sourced in the other sections. It makes sense to me anyhow, the reader's shouldn't have to skim the article to find the appropriate citation. I would still like to know what "the film did reasonably well at the box office" means. Are we talking millions here? Putting something like "the film did reasonably well at the box office grossing n dollars" would do just fine. The article needs someone to go through who is pretty good at fixing up grammar, etc. I'm not very good at it, but I'll go over it tomorrow with that in mind. Again, nice work! -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 05:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've added citations to the lead, and the amount grossed. And if you want to see Trembling, you definitely want to see Latter Days. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I gave the lead a bit of a rewrite, attempting to summarize the article a little better and more fully. No doubt I've made some mistakes, so feel free to fix things up or tell me. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 23:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've added citations to the lead, and the amount grossed. And if you want to see Trembling, you definitely want to see Latter Days. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Dev, you've done a great job with this article -- I'm going to have to add it to my Netflix queue now :) The background section was a very good touch, nice job. You're right on the awards section. The awards section just looked funny because my screen because my screen is quite large and it took up 30% or so of the width. From Wikipedia:Lead section: "the lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article" and "[the lead] should be carefully sourced as appropriate". I understand this to mean we should add sources in the lead-in regardless if it is sourced in the other sections. It makes sense to me anyhow, the reader's shouldn't have to skim the article to find the appropriate citation. I would still like to know what "the film did reasonably well at the box office" means. Are we talking millions here? Putting something like "the film did reasonably well at the box office grossing n dollars" would do just fine. The article needs someone to go through who is pretty good at fixing up grammar, etc. I'm not very good at it, but I'll go over it tomorrow with that in mind. Again, nice work! -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 05:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)