Talk:No Good Deed (2017 film)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This one's mine! Expect initial comments within a few days. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

It seems a bit empty to have just Reynolds in the infobox, even if this mainly focuses on his role

Do you mean to add Stan Lee? I could do that with a note that he is only in the online version. Unfortunately no one seems to know / have said who played the mugger and old man so there isn't any info on them yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If he's the only other confirmed cast member despite only a brief appearance, then yes. It would also help to have an "online version only" note. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I think it's safe to call this a comedy given how most (if not all) of the short has a very humorous nature. A citation for comedy can be found here as well as here and added to critical reception if needed.

Per WP:FILMLEAD we only list the primary genre in the lead, which is superhero films (this is something that comes up a lot for these sorts of films which often also come under comedy or thriller, etc.). But I'll try to emphasise the comedic elements in the lead since that is obviously a pretty major part of the short (btw that first review is for a different film). - adamstom97 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on the first link, though comedy by all reasonable measures is primary here, and suggesting otherwise is quite frankly as flat out ridiculous as saying The Notebook isn't a romance movie Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a comedy that happens to star a superhero, it is a superhero short that happens to be comedic (because of Deadpool). - adamstom97 (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When it overall is comedic, that obviously is when "comedy" is warranted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped a note at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Superhero genre to get some more opinions on this. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Both versions were positively received" needs to be referenced here or within the article body to avoid violating WP:SYNTH

Rephrased. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still is synthesis when we don't have any citations used to indicate an overall positive response I'm afraid Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand where you are coming from here. The lead summarises the body, and the body gives positive reviews. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, we can't just combine totals of used reviews and form a conclusion solely based on that when none of them state or even suggest it was an overall positive, mixed, or negative reception since that involves us synthesizing data as part of an analysis derived from original/primary research (which of course is inappropriate for Wikipedia). What we should do instead is use sources that have published research that can viably be used by others, which is what sites like Rotten Tomatoes and MetaCritic do. It doesn't necessarily have to be either of those two publications, but something that's known to be credible overall. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to change the wording until we have a source that we can use as an overview for the response. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That works better Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

Only two people listed in the section seems rather bare. Maybe merge this with the "plot" section to have something like "Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds) comes across" and note Stan Lee's appearance in some way right before the "before he helps the man" bit. Also, the given citation doesn't support the description used for Deadpool other than "mercenary"

From my experience, this practice is strongly discouraged. I'll merge the cast with the production section instead but am happy to discuss more if needs be. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That works just as well. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Production

Is it known where this was filmed? Either way, it should be noted that the short was recorded in December 2016.

I believe that it may have been filmed on the 20th Century Fox lot, but I haven't found a reliable source to back that up. And the December filming is noted in the second line of the production section, I've tried to clarify that bit. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I had in mind was starting with something like "No Good Deed was directed by David Leitch and filmed in December 2016. It was believed to have been added as a post-credits scene to the 2017 film Logan" before going into denial of connection.

Reworded. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

’ → ' per MOS:QUOTEMARKS

I think I've got them all. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Release

This doesn't give a release date

Not sure what happened there, have added a new ref. - adamstom97 (talk)

There should probably be some mention of 20th Century Fox here

Done. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is view count really worth mentioning? This is far from a record for opening views.

I was just trying to add some sort of viewership info since we don't have the usual box office (or TV ratings), but if you think it isn't all that notable I'll just remove it. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It can stay after further thought. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

"called the short 'typically irreverent' for the character" seems kind of bare; let's add more substance

That's all they said, it wasn't really a review of the short. I'll just remove it. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more reviews would help this look more complete; I've provided ~~two additional links~~ a Business Insider link above that could be used here

As I say in the references section below, we are at a disadvantage here in that there aren't really full reviews out there for this like there generally is for films. Many of the sites we can usually rely on just posted the video with a brief line about it, or had a short paragraph responding to it, so an equivalent reception section to feature film articles just isn't going to happen. I looked for more responses though, to fill out the section as much as I can. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely looking better, though I would try to find something noting overall reception and citing it here as well (even if it isn't Rotten Tomatoes). Also, contrary to what the text currently implies, Leitch's response isn't one cohesive quote and has a break between the "question" and "I think". Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking, but like I said there aren't really full reviews out there for it like we get for feature films, so something like Rotten Tomatoes doesn't cover it. If I come across something I will definitely add it, but I feel like we are going to be out of luck with that one. I think readers can get a good idea that the overall response has been positive from what the section has at the moment though.

The break between "question" and "I think" is just editorialisation. If you really think it is wrong then an ellipses can be added. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could also include something like "stating that" or "adding" in between. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

I'm not sure if "Blastr", "JoBlo.com", "Screen Crush", or "Screen Rant" are good sources to use

These are all pretty standard sources that I've never had a problem using before, and they are all providing reviews and analysis rather than some sort of claim that we would want an extra-reliable source for. Also, I feel like we need anything we can get for the reception section since this is no where near one of the feature films in terms critical coverage. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. It's a good thing none are being used for any contentious claims. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

Prose: Mostly good, but needs a bit of improvement
Referencing: Four questionable citations, and a couple of instances where text isn't supported by attributed sources
Coverage: Almost there; needs a bit of expansion
Neutrality: This is A-OK
Stability: Nothing of concern
Media: I've noticed a poster at IMDb (which I know isn't good for citing factual claims, but image hosting seems fine) that could be worth including unless this is known to be fake. Either way, I will assume good faith with the claim that File:Ryan Reynolds by Gage Skidmore.jpg is the uploader's own work since I can't find any evidence to suggest otherwise.

I haven't been able to find proof that the poster came from an official source, and it honestly just looks like some text has been added to a screenshot from short. And Gage's work is used a lot for these sorts of articles, generally images from comic-con or the like of cast and crew promoting these superhero-type films. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict: On hold for seven days. I don't think the above issues will take too long to address. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes and responded to individual points above. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An improvement for sure. See my above follow-up. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was busy yesterday. Have responded above. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good, now passing! Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Snuggums, really appreciate the review! - adamstom97 (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]