Wikipedia:Peer review/Ronnie Rocket/archive1

Ronnie Rocket

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

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to take it to FAC in the future. It's not a massive article but it's as comprehensive as I believe it can be, since it's essentially a film which does not exist. I am hoping to hear some feedback on structure and depth here; is the information laid out intuitively, does it seem complete, and ultimately are there any glaring holes or errors which need to be addressed? Any feedback which can be offered would be of tremendous help. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

In the lead, I think it would be helpful to link industrial art.
This is a nitpick, but for this part, when tentatively casting for this role, and later cast him in Twin Peaks and Mulholland Drive as a result, would it be possible to avoid having casting/cast in the same sentence as it is somewhat repetitive?
I have a question about this part, and a threatening train. Threatening in this context seems a little off to me and an example of anthropomorphism. Is there more information on the train to clarify this? Like was it is an oncoming train?
For this part, and a threatening train; while being stalked by, I do not think the semi-colon is necessary.
I have a clarification question about this part, which leaves him dependent on being plugged into an electrical supply at regular intervals. Do we know how he is plugged into electrical supply?
Does tap dancer need a hyphen? The tap dance article does not use one, but I am by no means an expert on this subject.
I would avoid the following sentence construction, with a write-up for The A.V. Club describing its contents, as it is a common note that I see in FACs. I would avoid the "with X verb-ing" sentence construction completely and revise it out.

These are my comments for the lead and "Overview" section. I hope they are helpful so far. Please ping me if I do not have add further comments by the end of the week. It is very cool to work on an article on an unfinished film. I do enjoy reading about different things that just never reached completion, whether it is a book, film, etc. Aoba47 (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments so far; I'll spend some time re-reading the sources to clarify a few of your questions and implement these suggestions soon. If I don't return to this by tomorrow, kick and/or ping me. I enjoy articles about things that never came to pass too, and have written others if you're ever looking for a new read--there's something intriguing about what could have been. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. Those article are very interesting, and I will definitely read them in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grapple X: Just wanted to ping you since it has been over a day. I will post the rest of my review sometime tomorrow if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, had gotten a little behind the gun with a few things. I've had a look back over the Odell/Le Blanc book and made some changes based on the above, thank you. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For File:Michael J Anderson 2.jpg, I would include the year that the photo was taken to the caption to provide further context for readers.
For this part, Lynch met Stuart Cornfeld at this time., I would clarify who Stuart Cornfeld is for unfamiliar readers, particularly how he relates to Lynch.
For this part, but on hearing the name of the first project, the director decided his next project would be, I would avoid repeating "project" twice in the same sentence.
I would revise this part, with his first appearance coming in 1990's "Episode 2", to avoid the Noun plus -ing sentence construction.
I'd be careful with using "also" in these two parts, "Anderson also appeared in" and "Lynch also visited northern England", as I have been told it comes across more as a filler word. I think it is particularly noticeable here as it appears in two sentences that are right next to one another.
The first paragraph of the "Legacy" section uses "project" three times in a short succession so the prose comes across as rather repetitive because of this. I would change one of these instances to avoid that.
I have a question about the citation formatting. Citations 2, 6, and 20 include the publisher, while Citations 10 and 21 do not have the publisher. I would be consistent with either having the publisher or not having the publisher.
I found an interesting LA Weekly article. Here is a clipping from it via Newspapers.com. It has some rather interesting information, such as a much longer working title. I know it can be a pain, but I would encourage you to look through newspaper sources to see if there is anything that could be added to the article.

This should be the end of my review. The article looks good to me, and a majority of my comments are relatively nitpick-y. I would encourage you to look through newspaper sources as I believe the one article I have linked above would be helpful. I hope you are having a great end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been very helpful, thank you, especially the additional article; I had tried Google's archives for news but hadn't used that particular site. Was able to add some extra details as a result and ended up adding another image for balance too. Definitely a lot of improvement. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that I could help out with this. I wouldn't be surprised if for whatever reason, some newspapers sources are not present in Google's archives, but can be found on Newspapers.com (and vice versa). This article looks ready for a FAC, but I would encourage you to wait for further feedback before nominating it. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any input on my current FAC, which is about a very silly song. I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with this peer review and everything in general! Aoba47 (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take a look over it shortly, no problem. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grapple X: did you get a chance to look at the newspaper sources? If you want Aoba47 to take another look, I suggest pinging them. If it's ready for FAC, pleaes close this and nominate the article over there. Z1720 (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]