GA nomination successful following sufficient improvements
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Laura Ziskin Productions" redirects to
Laura Ziskin and she previously has been linked in infobox, so you may as well unlink the productions as having two items linking to the same target feels redundant
I'm not sure MCU details are relevant enough to include in this section. Seems better for
Spider-Man in film.
Could you elaborate on which details you want removed?
You should scrap "Dunst and Molina are set to reprise their roles as Mary Jane Watson and Doctor Octopus in the upcoming Marvel Cinematic Universe third Spider-Man film, while Maguire is currently in negotiations to appear as well. The film is slated to be released in 2021." entirely
"killing his wife"..... let's mention Rosalie (aka Rosie) by name. I think it's worth doing so when she was part of the meal where Otto and Peter first bond, plus wanting to avenge her death plays a part in how our man with robotic arms wants to stop Spider-Man (wrongfully thinking Web-head killed his wife).
Responded to one point above, will ping once I get to "cast".
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 04:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Cast
All roles should be cited,
Some Dude From North Carolina, and most are missing references. You'd especially need those for things like "Peyton List and her brother Spencer List make their film debuts playing a little girl and boy playing on steps respectively" and "a fellow university student of Peter's, who is identified as Gwen Stacy in the film's novelization". WP:FILMCAST doesn't provide any exemptions in that regard. If you don't feel like using individual citations for each person, then I'd be fine with a general "Credits adapted from ______" note and implementing the source there containing as many roles as possible. See
Home Alone and
Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge for good examples of what I mean.
Done Added a "Credits adapted from ______" source.
The rest will most likely be done section-by-section. As for the "Laura Ziskin Productions" listing in infobox, you can simply restore the ref used there unless you plan to implement one for that within the prose instead.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 03:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)reply
While it is looking better now, I should mention before continuing onto other parts of the page that (for the sake of consistent formatting in the section) I would prefer all cast members to be presented in a list form with their accompanying descriptions instead of having a mixture of paragraphs and bullet points. I also am not convinced
Heavy.com is among the best sources to use.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 14:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Done All of the cast has been changed into "bullet-point"-form, and the Heavy.com reference has been swapped. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 21:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Facu-el Millo shouldn't have restored that style unless someone is willing to add individual citations for each role (or perhaps some collective ones for paragraph listings that mention multiple credits). In any case, the novelization bit for Gwen Stacy allegedly being featured still isn't supported by the general ref (it only lists Brianna Brown as a train passenger), and "will begin his physical training" should be in past tense (e.g. "underwent physical training") for Molina's Doc sock preparation.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 22:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Sure, but the bullet format doesn't make all those cast members any less in need of a reference than they were as a paragraph. They need a source either way. El Millo (
talk) 22:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Done in a proper way
Chompy Ace 02:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Production
Development
When checking the
file source for
File:SpiderManNoMore.jpg, I couldn't find this image. Either fix the URL or replace it with something that does contain the extracted panel.
Done, removed mentions from above
Chompy Ace 04:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Unless I'm missing something,
the attributed link for "Producer Avi Arad rejected the love triangle angle on Ock, and found Harry putting a price on Spider-Man's head unsubtle" doesn't support that statement. What we can safely do based on
what was used for discussing such elements is that they got scrapped after a rewrite from Gough and Millar.
I see discussion of Superman II, but that doesn't include giving up superhero duties, and there actually is a part where Sam Raimi specifically says "As much as I love the Superman films, they weren't really the source material.", contrary to what the current prose asserts.
The "Filming" subsection will come next.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 03:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Filming
I hope
File:Spydercam.jpg (used for
Spider-Man 3) is the same one worked with in this movie. Either way, I'll assume good faith that it and
File:NY-Spiderman.JPG are the uploaders' own works as asserted when there's no evidence to the contrary.
"shooting on ten major sets created by production designer Neil Spisak" isn't supported by
the attributed ref. Either get rid of that part or add an additional citation for it.
Only
"an anonymous sender" is used as a basis for the claim that shoots went on beyond Christmas 2003. The lack of transparency makes me suspicious that it could be a cover for somebody pulling things out of nowhere.
When did filming conclude? The section is incomplete without such detail. Something I forgot to mention earlier is that it should also be included in the lead.
Once I get through "Visual effects", the "Production" section will be complete :).
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 16:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Visual effects
For a slightly less repetitive use of "the" in this subsection's first paragraph, maybe change "The colors" into "Its colors" or "The helmet Maguire wore" into "A helment Maguire wore"
I can only guess "practical" in regards to the tentacles is another way of saying the real ones (or whatever wasn't digitally created). Maybe you could say that instead when "practical" somehow doesn't feel like the best word choice here.
Done word changed to "real"
Chompy Ace 09:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Not much to do here before I get into "Release". Improving it should be easy.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 03:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)reply
It'll take longer to get through "Reception", but here's something to work on in the meantime.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 00:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Reception
Box office
Contrary to what placing this subsection here suggests, how much a movie grossed is a completely separate matter from what critics thought of it, so I would recommend moving detials on earnings into "Release" because it talks about how much money was made after film distribution.
Not done per
WP:FILMBOXOFFICE ("This information can be included under the reception section, or if sufficient coverage exists, it is recommended that this information is placed in a "Box office" or "Theatrical run" section") and per consistency with other articles. The box office gross of a film indicates its reception with viewers, and how many people saw it in theaters. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 01:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)reply
$415.4 million internationally? That's a stretch even when rounding it from
$415,032,492. If trying to keep things to the nearest hundred-thousands, then just say $415 million, and I'd go with $788.6 million for worldwide totals instead of $789 million.
Don't use
IMDb as a citation when it's full of user-generated content and not trustworthy, especially not for any contentious claims like opening day records. Thankfully I found a
Box Office Mojo link that can be used and already is implemented for the Lord of the Rings bit while a
piece pertaining to Revenge of the Sith is a viable substitute for the June 30, 2004 opening in America.
I can't find any mention
here of Shrek 2, so remove that title and simply stick with "2004's second-highest-grossing film". It also says 29th highest grossing film in North America overall instead of 28th.
Only having reviews from 8 publications (I'm counting both Ebert postings as one critic/organization) seems inadequate for a famous and highly acclaimed movie, especially one considered to be among the best film sequels ever made. One way to flesh it out is by moving the praise from "Legacy" to here (where it belongs).
I'll tell you in advance that "legacy" can be scrapped after moving its praise since the meme isn't enough to stand as its own section, and the MCU details aren't relevant here, so get rid of those once the content worth preserving is rearranged.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 23:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Before I get into the "Video game" section and references:
Saturn Awards archive isn't working properly (might have to get a new link altogether), and my point on MTV Movie Award nominations (which you seem to have missed) is that the article should provide something that gives the results of who won, even if it means having separate citations for that and one where the nominees are announced. Removing Empire isn't what I meant at all. On another note, put "15 Sequels That Are Way Better Than The Originals" in quotation marks, and I'm not sure how reliable "Screen Crush" is. The "Despite the many comic book superhero movies which have followed it" part is needlessly wordy and gives a false impression that a large number of films in a similar genre coming out afterwards has anything to do with how much people liked this one. Just go with "Spider-Man 2 has frequently been listed among rankings of the best superhero movies".
Buzzfeed has tons of user-generated content and therefore is inadvisable to include. You should specify that "Raimi's best superhero movie still takes the cake" refers to how Yahoo! finds this superior to
The Amazing Spider-Man 2. I also still can't access the link for American Film Institute Awards or its archive, and the BAFTAs
only list Harry Potter for "Orange Film of the Year". As for having Box Office in this section, "can be included" isn't the same thing as "should be included". Why other articles have such placements is beyond me. Also, that's not something you can get a definitive count for when it comes to how many people saw a movie in theaters when people sometimes attend multiple screenings.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 02:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Done I believe Chompy Ace has tackled most of these suggestions except the one about the reference for MTV Movie Award nominations, which I have corrected by simply adding a second reference containing verdicts. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 22:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Video game
The first paragraph is entirely uncited. You mainly need references for release date, system distribution, and publisher details. Another ref is needed for critics' opinions on the game. The one attributed to
sales can also be used for consoles.
You also neglected to add
Box Office Mojo (which one shouldn't italicize) as a publication name for
Ref#64 and
Ref#66 as well as their authors (both are written by Brandon Gray)
References: Some formatting needs to be altered, and not everything is properly attributed yet (namely Spencer List, video game details, and the results of MTV Movie Awards; merely giving a list of nominations isn't enough when that doesn't tell you who won)
Coverage: Looks good
Neutrality: I can't find any bias
Stability: Nothing of concern
Media: All images are appropriately licensed
Verdict: Putting the nomination on hold. If my remaining concerns are addressed in seven days or less, then I'll happily pass it.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 19:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)reply
This now is ready to be promoted. Congrats on getting it up to par, and Happy New Year!
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 06:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA nomination successful following sufficient improvements
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Laura Ziskin Productions" redirects to
Laura Ziskin and she previously has been linked in infobox, so you may as well unlink the productions as having two items linking to the same target feels redundant
I'm not sure MCU details are relevant enough to include in this section. Seems better for
Spider-Man in film.
Could you elaborate on which details you want removed?
You should scrap "Dunst and Molina are set to reprise their roles as Mary Jane Watson and Doctor Octopus in the upcoming Marvel Cinematic Universe third Spider-Man film, while Maguire is currently in negotiations to appear as well. The film is slated to be released in 2021." entirely
"killing his wife"..... let's mention Rosalie (aka Rosie) by name. I think it's worth doing so when she was part of the meal where Otto and Peter first bond, plus wanting to avenge her death plays a part in how our man with robotic arms wants to stop Spider-Man (wrongfully thinking Web-head killed his wife).
Responded to one point above, will ping once I get to "cast".
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 04:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Cast
All roles should be cited,
Some Dude From North Carolina, and most are missing references. You'd especially need those for things like "Peyton List and her brother Spencer List make their film debuts playing a little girl and boy playing on steps respectively" and "a fellow university student of Peter's, who is identified as Gwen Stacy in the film's novelization". WP:FILMCAST doesn't provide any exemptions in that regard. If you don't feel like using individual citations for each person, then I'd be fine with a general "Credits adapted from ______" note and implementing the source there containing as many roles as possible. See
Home Alone and
Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge for good examples of what I mean.
Done Added a "Credits adapted from ______" source.
The rest will most likely be done section-by-section. As for the "Laura Ziskin Productions" listing in infobox, you can simply restore the ref used there unless you plan to implement one for that within the prose instead.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 03:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)reply
While it is looking better now, I should mention before continuing onto other parts of the page that (for the sake of consistent formatting in the section) I would prefer all cast members to be presented in a list form with their accompanying descriptions instead of having a mixture of paragraphs and bullet points. I also am not convinced
Heavy.com is among the best sources to use.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 14:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Done All of the cast has been changed into "bullet-point"-form, and the Heavy.com reference has been swapped. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 21:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Facu-el Millo shouldn't have restored that style unless someone is willing to add individual citations for each role (or perhaps some collective ones for paragraph listings that mention multiple credits). In any case, the novelization bit for Gwen Stacy allegedly being featured still isn't supported by the general ref (it only lists Brianna Brown as a train passenger), and "will begin his physical training" should be in past tense (e.g. "underwent physical training") for Molina's Doc sock preparation.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 22:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Sure, but the bullet format doesn't make all those cast members any less in need of a reference than they were as a paragraph. They need a source either way. El Millo (
talk) 22:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Done in a proper way
Chompy Ace 02:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Production
Development
When checking the
file source for
File:SpiderManNoMore.jpg, I couldn't find this image. Either fix the URL or replace it with something that does contain the extracted panel.
Done, removed mentions from above
Chompy Ace 04:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Unless I'm missing something,
the attributed link for "Producer Avi Arad rejected the love triangle angle on Ock, and found Harry putting a price on Spider-Man's head unsubtle" doesn't support that statement. What we can safely do based on
what was used for discussing such elements is that they got scrapped after a rewrite from Gough and Millar.
I see discussion of Superman II, but that doesn't include giving up superhero duties, and there actually is a part where Sam Raimi specifically says "As much as I love the Superman films, they weren't really the source material.", contrary to what the current prose asserts.
The "Filming" subsection will come next.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 03:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Filming
I hope
File:Spydercam.jpg (used for
Spider-Man 3) is the same one worked with in this movie. Either way, I'll assume good faith that it and
File:NY-Spiderman.JPG are the uploaders' own works as asserted when there's no evidence to the contrary.
"shooting on ten major sets created by production designer Neil Spisak" isn't supported by
the attributed ref. Either get rid of that part or add an additional citation for it.
Only
"an anonymous sender" is used as a basis for the claim that shoots went on beyond Christmas 2003. The lack of transparency makes me suspicious that it could be a cover for somebody pulling things out of nowhere.
When did filming conclude? The section is incomplete without such detail. Something I forgot to mention earlier is that it should also be included in the lead.
Once I get through "Visual effects", the "Production" section will be complete :).
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 16:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Visual effects
For a slightly less repetitive use of "the" in this subsection's first paragraph, maybe change "The colors" into "Its colors" or "The helmet Maguire wore" into "A helment Maguire wore"
I can only guess "practical" in regards to the tentacles is another way of saying the real ones (or whatever wasn't digitally created). Maybe you could say that instead when "practical" somehow doesn't feel like the best word choice here.
Done word changed to "real"
Chompy Ace 09:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Not much to do here before I get into "Release". Improving it should be easy.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 03:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)reply
It'll take longer to get through "Reception", but here's something to work on in the meantime.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 00:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Reception
Box office
Contrary to what placing this subsection here suggests, how much a movie grossed is a completely separate matter from what critics thought of it, so I would recommend moving detials on earnings into "Release" because it talks about how much money was made after film distribution.
Not done per
WP:FILMBOXOFFICE ("This information can be included under the reception section, or if sufficient coverage exists, it is recommended that this information is placed in a "Box office" or "Theatrical run" section") and per consistency with other articles. The box office gross of a film indicates its reception with viewers, and how many people saw it in theaters. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 01:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)reply
$415.4 million internationally? That's a stretch even when rounding it from
$415,032,492. If trying to keep things to the nearest hundred-thousands, then just say $415 million, and I'd go with $788.6 million for worldwide totals instead of $789 million.
Don't use
IMDb as a citation when it's full of user-generated content and not trustworthy, especially not for any contentious claims like opening day records. Thankfully I found a
Box Office Mojo link that can be used and already is implemented for the Lord of the Rings bit while a
piece pertaining to Revenge of the Sith is a viable substitute for the June 30, 2004 opening in America.
I can't find any mention
here of Shrek 2, so remove that title and simply stick with "2004's second-highest-grossing film". It also says 29th highest grossing film in North America overall instead of 28th.
Only having reviews from 8 publications (I'm counting both Ebert postings as one critic/organization) seems inadequate for a famous and highly acclaimed movie, especially one considered to be among the best film sequels ever made. One way to flesh it out is by moving the praise from "Legacy" to here (where it belongs).
I'll tell you in advance that "legacy" can be scrapped after moving its praise since the meme isn't enough to stand as its own section, and the MCU details aren't relevant here, so get rid of those once the content worth preserving is rearranged.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 23:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Before I get into the "Video game" section and references:
Saturn Awards archive isn't working properly (might have to get a new link altogether), and my point on MTV Movie Award nominations (which you seem to have missed) is that the article should provide something that gives the results of who won, even if it means having separate citations for that and one where the nominees are announced. Removing Empire isn't what I meant at all. On another note, put "15 Sequels That Are Way Better Than The Originals" in quotation marks, and I'm not sure how reliable "Screen Crush" is. The "Despite the many comic book superhero movies which have followed it" part is needlessly wordy and gives a false impression that a large number of films in a similar genre coming out afterwards has anything to do with how much people liked this one. Just go with "Spider-Man 2 has frequently been listed among rankings of the best superhero movies".
Buzzfeed has tons of user-generated content and therefore is inadvisable to include. You should specify that "Raimi's best superhero movie still takes the cake" refers to how Yahoo! finds this superior to
The Amazing Spider-Man 2. I also still can't access the link for American Film Institute Awards or its archive, and the BAFTAs
only list Harry Potter for "Orange Film of the Year". As for having Box Office in this section, "can be included" isn't the same thing as "should be included". Why other articles have such placements is beyond me. Also, that's not something you can get a definitive count for when it comes to how many people saw a movie in theaters when people sometimes attend multiple screenings.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 02:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Done I believe Chompy Ace has tackled most of these suggestions except the one about the reference for MTV Movie Award nominations, which I have corrected by simply adding a second reference containing verdicts. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 22:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Video game
The first paragraph is entirely uncited. You mainly need references for release date, system distribution, and publisher details. Another ref is needed for critics' opinions on the game. The one attributed to
sales can also be used for consoles.
You also neglected to add
Box Office Mojo (which one shouldn't italicize) as a publication name for
Ref#64 and
Ref#66 as well as their authors (both are written by Brandon Gray)
References: Some formatting needs to be altered, and not everything is properly attributed yet (namely Spencer List, video game details, and the results of MTV Movie Awards; merely giving a list of nominations isn't enough when that doesn't tell you who won)
Coverage: Looks good
Neutrality: I can't find any bias
Stability: Nothing of concern
Media: All images are appropriately licensed
Verdict: Putting the nomination on hold. If my remaining concerns are addressed in seven days or less, then I'll happily pass it.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 19:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)reply
This now is ready to be promoted. Congrats on getting it up to par, and Happy New Year!
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 06:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.