Talk:Spectre (2015 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 03:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of April 18, 2016, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
3. Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. This is a way to help out the Wikipedia community by reducing our GA Review WP:BACKLOGS, and a form of paying it forward. Thank you !
4. This article is quite large, suggest per WP:LEAD to have four good sized paragraphs, perhaps four paragraphs of 4 to 5 sentences in length per paragraph.
5. Critical reception - starts out with vague wording, use of "many", twice in two sentences in sect. Suggest trimming, or attributing, or "according to BBC", something like that to make less generalized.
6. Similarly, both in footnotes and in Critical reception sects, use of "some" is also a bit vague, suggest copy editing to make this more specific wording in all these instances in article.
7. Sequel sect is three-sentences-long in size = can this be expanded?

2. Verifiable?:

1. Please make sure all unsourced info regarding factual assertions of info in Footnotes sect get citations after those assertions.
2. Spectre_(2015_film)#Cast - in this sect, some have cites, some don't, is there a reason for no cites for some but cites for others?
3. Please explain why there are some cites in lede, but not for everything factually asserted in lede? Was there some dispute in the past over this particular info ?

3. Broad in coverage?: Article is indeed quite thorough and broad in scope with multiple subsections in good structural organizational format and layout for our readers. Good job here.

4. Neutral point of view?:

1. Spectre_(2015_film)#Taxation_benefits_controversy - does this needs its own subsection and to show up in Table of Contents like that? Is that appropriate emphasis of this detail?
2. Spectre_(2015_film)#Sony_Pictures_Entertainment_hack - does this need its own sub sect? For such small amount of material in article? Could it either be expanded or merged elsewhere on the page?
3. Spectre_(2015_film)#Source_material - similar issue, do we need sub sect for this small amount of info, or can we retain the info but not have its own sub sect for this topic ?

5. Stable?

1. Article edit history shows lots of random IP edits and reverts and edits with no edit summary -- I looked back through last five hundred (500) edits but did not see GA Nominator Nergaal (talk · contribs) in edit history -- can this be explained please ?
2. Article talk page history shows a few issues at: Talk:Spectre_(2015_film)#Changes, and Talk:Spectre_(2015_film)#Spectre_film_ending and Talk:Spectre_(2015_film)#Indian_censorship_revisited. Could any of the present ongoing stability issues please be commented on and explained ?

6. Images?:

1. File:Spectre 2015 poster.jpg - more info can be given for "source" field.
2. File:Secret Intelligence Service building - Vauxhall Cross - Vauxhall - London - 24042004.jpg - please format file page and fill out fields with template commons:Template:Information.

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Removed refs in the lead, aside from a footnote. Moved sections around in the Production section. Rewrote Critical reception, added stuff to the poster file. Fixed refs in Cast. See if there's anything missing, @Cirt:. igordebraga ≠ 05:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• A gentle nudge for Cirt; nothing has been done on the article by the drive-by nominator to rectify your comments in over three weeks. I think this one can be lain to rest. - SchroCat (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The drive-by hasn't done anything, but I am on my way, @SchroCat:. Willing to give a hand? igordebraga ≠ 15:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Apols - I checked a couple of days ago and saw no progress, but should have checked again before commenting: mea culpa! Unfortunatley I don't have enough time on my hands at the moment - a backlog of review requests on Wiki and a busy work/life schedule off wiki are cramping me a little at the moment. cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

2nd Opinion

• @Nergaal: Hello! My name is MrWooHoo and I'll be conducting a review. Before we begin, I'd like to let you know that I have "three" sub reviews in my review, the main review (using broad GA criteria as well as the GA toolbox), a prose review, and a source review (if necessary). If you have addressed any points I have made in the main review, please leave them in the comments section. If you have addressed points I have made in the prose review, please leave them in the prose review section and follow the instructions I have laid out there. Cheers! MrWooHoo (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Main Review

• No problems with GA toolbox.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See prose review below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I would make the lead about 4 paragraphs because of the length of the article. I would suggest splitting the 3rd paragraph into two.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There have been some IP edits but nothing that makes the article unstable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Like stated above in the 1st review, please add template information from here to File:Secret Intelligence Service building - Vauxhall Cross - Vauxhall - London - 24042004.jpg as well as a bit more source information to File:Spectre 2015 poster.jpg.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	See above notes and below prose review.

Prose Review

Note: If you have changed the sentence that needed to be corrected, press Enter and start off the line with ::, then use Y or  Done If the change was only partially done use Y, and N or  Not done if the change could not occur. (If you would explain why, I would be greatly appreciated :P) To see code, go to edit source and copy the code.

• "Spectre (2015) is the twenty-fourth James Bond film produced by Eon Productions."

Per WP:NUMERAL, I would make it 24th.

WP:NUMERAL says Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words, so "twenty-fourth" is perfectly legal. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You're right here. Thanks for the input. MrWooHoo (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• "with the film marking the character's re-introduction into the series."

I would remove the hyphen and make it "reintroduction".

• "It was released in the United States one week later, on 6 November. Spectre received mixed to positive reviews upon its release; although criticised for its length, lack of screen time for new characters, pacing and writing, it received praise for its action sequences, performances of the cast, Thomas Newman's musical score, and cinematography."

This seems a bit like a run on sentence, and I would split the sentence. You can also add a semicolon in between "writing" and "it".

• "The two travel to the hotel and discover White left evidence directing them to Oberhauser's operations base in the desert."

This sentence sounds a bit odd, maybe change "discover" to "discovered" and add the word "that" before the word "White".

• "In return C will give Spectre unlimited access to intelligence gathered by Nine Eyes"

I think "In return" is an introductory clause, so add a comma after "return".

Not in BrEng. - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• "and counter-act investigations into their operations."

I would remove the hyphen and make it counteract.

• "As the Moroccan facility was one node in a wider network, Bond and Swann return to London where they meet M, Bill Tanner, Q, and Moneypenny "

In the lead you don't use the serial comma/Oxford comma, but here you do. You probably want to have the serial comma (or don't have it) consistently in the article.

• "In March 2013 Mendes said he would not return to direct the next film in the series, then known as Bond 24"

Add a comma after "2013" as this is an introductory clause.

Not in BrEng. - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• "In July 2015 Mendes noted that the combined crew of Spectre numbered over one thousand, making it a larger production than Skyfall."

Add a comma after "2015" as this is also an introductory clause.

Not in BrEng. - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• "In February 2015 over fifteen hundred extras were hired for the pre-title sequence set in Mexico, though they were duplicated in the film, giving the effect of around ten thousand extras"

Add a comma after "2015".

Not in BrEng. - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• "On 17 May 2015 filming took place on the Thames in London."

Add a comma after "2015".

Not in BrEng. - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• "During the December 2014 press conference announcing the start of filming, Aston Martin and Eon unveiled the new DB10 as the official car for the film."

Add a comma after "2014".

Not in BrEng. - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• " In the film's first seven days it grossed £41.7 million ($63.8 million),"

I'm thinking that a comma is necessary after "days" but I'm not sure.

Not in BrEng. - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• "In the United States and Canada the film opened on 6 November 2015, and in its opening weekend, was originally projected to gross $70–75 million from 3,927 screens, the widest release for a Bond film."

Add a comma after "Canada".

Not in BrEng. - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Some parts of the "Accolades" section isn't referenced.

For example, Academy Awards and the Golden Globe Awards.

• "A sequel to Spectre will begin development in spring 2016."

I would find a reference that says that it's already in development and then change the sentence to "...is currently in development".

• Reference some notes in the Notes section.

Shouldn't Note 2 and 3 be referenced?

• I hope that there is much more of a review to come. Even after these changes are made, the article will fall a long way short of where a GA should be. There are inconsistencies in date format, some poorly formatted references, a couple of Americanisms for something that is supposed to be written in BrEng and needs a damned good copyedit. - SchroCat (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

As per SchroCat's advice, I will be failing this article. Nominator also seems to be inactive. MrWooHoo (T • C) 19:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)