Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/GoldenEye/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.
GoldenEye[edit]
This article has been worked at on and off for a while now, and had two peer reviews here and here. The issues raised in them have been addressed and no new ones seem forthcoming. I think it meets the criteria for a featured article. Self-nom. Trebor 23:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Quite impressive. It's extensively cited and well-written, except for a few problems here and there. I suggest merging the "Vehicles and gadgets" section with the "Firearms" section, and, while it doesn't bother me, others may object to them for making the article too listy or detailed. Some of the images need detailed fair use rationales as well. The soundtrack image should probably be removed, as it's similar to the movie poster and you need to keep the number of fair use images to a minimum. I'll comment more later.--Dark Kubrick 03:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I've addressed the points you raised. The inclusion gadgets/guns/car section is up for debate, but I think it's worth it for a Bond film (that is to say, Bond films rarely have any deeper meaning or hidden imagery - it's all about the action). Trebor 08:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of my suggestions (but remember to allow me to strike out the objections :) ). Also, could the Production and Development sections be merged? And why does the infobox not list the stars of the film, except Pierce Brosnan?--Dark Kubrick 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops sorry, my first FA. What title do you think the sections should be merged under? It doesn't list the other stars of the film because it is a specific Bond infobox (see here) with no fields for it. I could modify the template if you think the other cast should be listed (which, on reflection, they probably should). Trebor 20:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They could be merged under "Production and development" I guess. It just seems like those two sections belong together. And the infobox should probably be modified.--Dark Kubrick 22:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Personally I think the statements in the lead should be referenced with footnotes. I'm unsure about the lists in the 'Vehicles, gadgets and guns' and 'Censorship' sections. They would be better as prose. Otherwise looks very good. — Wackymacs 13:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I'll have a look at the lead - I don't think anything is claimed that isn't referenced later on though, and it can be hard to find exact sources for the "summary" that the lead is. I'll take the list out the censorship section, but I think vehicles, gadgets and guns would be clumsier as prose. Trebor 19:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I'm also unsure about the bold text in the Cast section and the 'Vehicles, gadgets and guns' section. Does this comply with the Manual of Style? — Wackymacs 20:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The bold text in the Cast section is a standard for film articles from the Wikiproject. I expect there's no standard for the "Vehicles, gadgets and guns" - it's personal preference, and I just left it how I found it. If you think it's too bright, I can change it. Trebor 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I'm also unsure about the bold text in the Cast section and the 'Vehicles, gadgets and guns' section. Does this comply with the Manual of Style? — Wackymacs 20:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'd like to see a bit longer of a lede. The plot section has no references at all. Several other parts of the article are missing sources, notably the entire "Vehicles, gadgets and guns" section. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. I'll increase the length of the lead. Plot sections for films don't need references (no other film FAs have them), and some of that applies to the "Vehicles, gadgets and guns" section although there may be a few sources I can find for them. Trebor 19:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the plot sections not having references. That is a vital part of the article. The same goes with vehicles, gadgets, and guns. If there are no references, how is it not original research? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't seen where, but I assume that it was decided at some point that to require independent references for the plot details of a film is taking it too far (again, I'll add that no other film FAs have them). The film is there, it can be watched, it's a primary reference - there will be no independent sources that specifically describe the plot because there'd be no point in those sources existing (if that makes sense). The same goes for any description of an in-universe object. The manual of style for fiction merely warns that the article should be written primarily from an out-of-universe perspective. What alternative is there - you either have to use the film as a primary reference or remove the plot details.
- If that is the case, I'll Abstain. I understand using the film as a primary reference, but I'm uncomfortable without having a reference. Songs, for example, typically have sources to describe what occurs in the song. I'm especially uncomfortable about the in-universe objects. It sounds like original research. "Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories." Hurricanehink (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that's fair enough. I think it's a problem inherent in writing about fiction, though; there just won't be a secondary source for it. Trebor 20:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, another quick thought. Would something like [1] reassure you as a source? Trebor 20:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That looks good for the gadgets. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is the case, I'll Abstain. I understand using the film as a primary reference, but I'm uncomfortable without having a reference. Songs, for example, typically have sources to describe what occurs in the song. I'm especially uncomfortable about the in-universe objects. It sounds like original research. "Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories." Hurricanehink (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't seen where, but I assume that it was decided at some point that to require independent references for the plot details of a film is taking it too far (again, I'll add that no other film FAs have them). The film is there, it can be watched, it's a primary reference - there will be no independent sources that specifically describe the plot because there'd be no point in those sources existing (if that makes sense). The same goes for any description of an in-universe object. The manual of style for fiction merely warns that the article should be written primarily from an out-of-universe perspective. What alternative is there - you either have to use the film as a primary reference or remove the plot details.
- I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the plot sections not having references. That is a vital part of the article. The same goes with vehicles, gadgets, and guns. If there are no references, how is it not original research? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, on the point of the plot synopsis not having references, Raul654, the Featured Article Director, said here that "the purpose of adding a reference is to allow someone to know the source of a particular bit of information. It should be implicitely obvious that when you are describing the plot of a work, the source of the information is the work itself. Thus, no reference is necessary."--Dark Kubrick 22:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I guess it's fine that the plot doesn't have a reference. After taking another quick look of the article, here's some things that need to be addressed.
- Phrases in parenthesis should be avoided.
- Some citations needed.
- I've put cites in relevant places and removed one bit of information (not added by me) as I couldn't find one.
- Phrases in quotation marks that aren't quotes should be avoided, like "a bit of a back seat"
- That was a quote from the interview, attempted to be put in the text. If you think it sounds odd, I can rephrase it.
- Sources are needed for the rest of the cast in the cast section
- I don't think there's anything left which isn't primarily sourced from the movie, i.e. in-world details.
- Music and the entire other media section are fairly small. Perhaps the sections should be combined, with no subsections.
- Hurricanehink (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Good article, but I have reservations. Specifically, plot section needs copyediting and better prose, and I also feel all the trivia in the cast section should be removed - they make the section feel like an entertainment magazine article. Generally, the whole article should be scrubbed for any excess trivia/problematic wording e.g. "Daniel Kleinman took over from Maurice Binder (who had died in 1991) in designing the opening credits which showcases the Cold War ending and Soviet Union collapsing. He says they are meant to be "a kind of story telling sequence" showing that "what was happening in Communist countries was Communism was falling down".[17]". The second sentence does not add any new information - its a trivial (and awkwardly worded) quote. Also "showcases" is an odd word to use here (and does the opening sequence actually refer to the end of the Cold War - or just the collapse of Communism?; plus "says" is the wrong tense and the reference links is broken. Bwithh 04:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopefully I've removed what is trivia from the cast section - I've left in details about other Bond work or similar roles they've played, as I've seen in other film FAs. I also hope that I've improved the section you comment on - I've tried to explain what is shown in the sequence, followed by the Kleinman quote to explain the message he was trying to put across. I've done my best on the prose in the plot section but am no longer sure if what I change makes it better or worse; it could do with some new eyes to work on it, which I'll try to get. Trebor 17:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've performed a copyedit on the plot synopsis, hope I helped. I also slightly edited the lead to briefly explain who James Bond is.--Dark Kubrick 23:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose there is good here, but there are problems with sources and referencing.
- (What makes this source reliable? And why aren't they capitalized?)
^ bmw z3. James Bond multimedia. Retrieved on 2007-01-03. ^ aston martin db5. James Bond multimedia. Retrieved on 2007-01-03. ^ russian tank. James Bond multimedia. Retrieved on 2007-01-03. ^ armoured train. James Bond multimedia. Retrieved on 2007-01-03. ^ goldeneye gadgets. James Bond multimedia. Retrieved on 2007-01-03.
- They weren't capitalised because I copied and pasted from the pages, but I've changed it now. For reliability: that section could be "cited" purely using the film as a primary reference, this source is just another way of showing the information, so reliability isn't so much of an issue. I mean, it accurately describes what's in the film so it is reliable, even if it has few credentials. I don't know if that qualifies, but it seems fairly pointless not to allow it.
- What makes this source reliable, and why isn't it correctly formatted?
^ a b bondmovies.com. Retrieved on 2006-11-11.
- Not sure what you mean about the formatting; it uses the cite web tag, there just isn't much information to put in. Reliabilitywise - it is just a table constructed using the figures from BoxOfficeMojo (which is reliable) to compare the Bond films. To cite a comparison of all the films directly from BoxOfficeMojo would be tricky, so it's a way to avoid that.
- Inconsistent ref formatting - example - why is this correctly and completely formatted, with author last name first:
^ Last, Kimberly. "Pierce Brosnan's Long and Winding Road To Bond", GoldenEye (magazine), 1995. Retrieved on 2006-11-12.
- while this uses a different style
^ Ebert, Roger (1995-11-17). GoldenEye. Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved on 2006-11-16.
- and others use no style?
^ "Hollywood mogul puts $200m price on James Bond's head;Albert "Cubby" Broccoli", The Sunday Times, 1990-08-12. ^ "Interview with Dalton", The Daily Mail, 1993-08-06. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference in formatting is a result of the difference between the "Cite news" and "Cite web" tags: the former puts the date near the end; the latter places it in brackets. The problem is that sometimes I am citing a news source, and sometimes a web source, so the formatting won't be consistent. The last use "no style" because of limited information available for them. I don't always have all the details; I just include what I know. Trebor 17:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I appreciate the difference between cite web and cite news, but magazines and newspaper articles use the same format wrt dates. The first example (above) is a magazine, with the date after the magazine name. The second example is a newspaper, with the date before the newspaper. The third example is a newspaper, with info all over the place. Is "Cubby" the author? The three should use one, consistent referencing style - whichever you choose. Also, many of your refs aren't formatted at all, example: Opening Sequence W/ Daniel Kleinman. Retrieved on 2007-01-18. You give no biblio info about this ref. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference in formatting is a result of the difference between the "Cite news" and "Cite web" tags: the former puts the date near the end; the latter places it in brackets. The problem is that sometimes I am citing a news source, and sometimes a web source, so the formatting won't be consistent. The last use "no style" because of limited information available for them. I don't always have all the details; I just include what I know. Trebor 17:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.