Wikipedia:Peer review/Goldfinger (film)/archive1
Condsidered by critics and fanatics alike to be one of the best, if not the best, Bond film of all time, this article was recently promoted to GA-status after work by WikiProject James Bond as its Collaboration of the Fortnight. All comments, suggestions, etc. are invited and welcomed. Cliff smith 19:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Review by Awadewit
[edit]The biggest problem with the article is that it is not comprehensive (even in the GA sense). It does not address the themes of the film or the artistry of the film (apart from sound). Moreover, the article does not represent the published work on this film. In fact, it does not use any film scholarship at all. In a quick google scholar search, I found these works that would help the editors begin writing "Themes" and "Cinematic style" sections. These sources' bibliographies should also lead them to even more sources.
- Screening Geopolitics: James Bond and the Early Cold War films (1962-1967)
- The Politics of James Bond: From Fleming's Novels to the Big Screen
- Licence to Thrill: A Cultural History of the James Bond Films
- James Bond's “Pussy” and Anglo-American Cold War Sexuality
- The Changing Image of the Soviets in the Bond Saga: From Bond-Villains to "Acceptable Role Partners"
- Spyscreen: Espionage on Film and TV from the 1930s to the 1960s
- The lead should be a standalone summary of the article per WP:LEAD (please read carefully). The initial level of detail, I feel, is too high and loses the non-aficianado. A better job could be done alluding to the article's sections as well.
- The "Plot" section is much too long. Summarize more!
- The article is arranged, in my opinion, illogically. Shouldn't the plot summary come first in the article? It is odd to have "Production" - "Plot" - "Casting". Isn't "Casting" a part of production? Also, shouldn't the "Soundtrack" come somewhere before the "Reception"?
Done I have done some in-merging. Nothing else will do. Vikrant Phadkay 15:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Must we have a cast list so prominently displayed in the middle of the article? Could it be moved to the end - there is really very little information there.
- The "Reception" section does not address the critical reception of the film at the time. What did film critics in newspapers say about it? How was it reviewed? Also, why do we care what the AFI ranked it? Explain to the reader the importance of these numbers or delete them.
- The article should be copy edited - there is a lot of repetitious diction and syntax.
With a lot of work put in by a few editors over the next few months, this article can be improved dramatically. Awadewit | talk 10:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)