Wikipedia:Peer review/Panavision/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I created this page several weeks ago in the hope that it would attract at least a few edits, but no such luck! I think it's a good article considering it has zero edits, but I'd really like to work on it more...I just need some advice how, where, and what. Thanks much! --Girolamo Savonarola 22:27, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

  • I think I should preface this reply with a statement that I know nothing about the company. With that in mind, it's always good to add pictures and references (especially if you're interested in moving this up to featured status. As far as specifics go, the introduction could use expansion, and you might want to add a section (or section) on their products; right now it seems to be almost exclusively historical. Lastly, it could use more wikilinks. I'll put in a few myself. Good work overall, though. Dave (talk) 23:05, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Consider adding an info box to summarize what the company does. The Microsoft page gives a good example of how to implement such a box. Cedars 02:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You should probably expand your reference section, following Wikipedia:Cite sources so thats it clear where you got the information. I'd also suggest that you explain some of the more technical stuff in a bit more detail so that people can understand without having to move between articles--nixie 11:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thanks for those. I've added a handful of sources I mainly relied on, and also clarified a few of the sections. Also some additional information added, and more wikilinks provided. I'm not certain if individual numbered citations are needed - the Wikipedia article says they aren't needed if the facts are fairly straightforward and uncontested, which I believe most of these are. As far as the technical stuff goes, it'd be easier for me to deal with that if I could have an idea which points in particular need more work - it's all clear to me, of course, but I have no idea which concepts might prove slippery for others, so any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks again! --Girolamo Savonarola 01:59, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
    • Now I reread it I'm not sure which technical points I was referring to either, except making sure that the reader knows that anamorphic means widescreen. One thing I did come across while doing some reading was Stanley Kubricks use of Super Panavision 70 for shooting 2001, does this rate a mention.--nixie 04:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I'm not certain whether or not it does - Super Panavision was basically just a trade name for the standard 70mm process that used Panavision lenses and cameras. No different than Todd-AO otherwise, as far as I can tell. Super Panavision may warrant a mention, but as a non-pioneering technology, again, I'm not certain. We also certainly could not make a list of films shot using Panavision, since it would encompass something around the order of 20-30% of all major Hollywood productions. --Girolamo Savonarola 12:53, 2005 May 23 (UTC)