This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Warcraft (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Warcraft" film – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Warcraft (film) was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
I've just noticed that Warcraft has been nominated for two Annie Awards:
http://annieawards.org/nominees/#11
http://annieawards.org/nominees/#14
Should these be included in the article? 197.88.132.236 ( talk) 20:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
So, what hasn't been mentioned in the article yet is that the DVD/Blu-Ray releases for the film are already on pre-order though they haven't been released yet. Should a section for home media be added to the article? It can be updated when they are released in October. 197.88.9.65 ( talk) 19:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Could I please request that the plot not be added yet, and that I write up the plot after June 16 when the film is released in Australia? I'm planning on seeing the movie on its opening night here, but I don't want to remove the article from my watchlist to avoid spoilers such a long way out from when I can see the movie, as I want to keep contributing to the article up until then. It would be unfair to put it in now, especially as it hasn't even been released domestically yet. Thanks. 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs) 08:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
There is an unregistered user (comes up as "2601:584:c500:192b:55b4:b032:2e32:f48b") that keeps removing parts of the article, and is removing part of a link whilst keeping the rest of the link intact. I have reverted the page twice, but someone might have to keep an eye on things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.232.229 ( talk) 12:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
By the way, there was previously a mention that Mark Kermode gave it a positive review. Why was that removed? Can someone revert that edit to put it back? It's still valid. 197.88.132.214 ( talk) 15:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
This edit was what expanded the plot summary, which I previously constrained within 700 words when I wrote the original one. There have been other edits to the plot summary since then, so I'm not going to revert it outright, but here is the original, shorter plot summary, in case someone wants to take a shot at shortening the current one. - Sikon ( talk) 07:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Should we add some more notes about the positive response of audiences in the review area or is that reserves mainly for critics and disregarding audience opinions? 63.225.80.36 ( talk) 21:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Could we change the sentence "The film received mostly negative reviews and has grossed over $306 million." to "Although the film received mostly negative reviews, it has grossed over $306 million."? Seems like this would better reflect the difference between critical and audience reactions without explicitly citing audiences as an objective source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.89.248 ( talk) 01:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok lets stop talking about political correctness and wikipedia guidelines for a second. This movie is clearly a hate or love movie, and the critics clearly hates it and audiences like it in general, and this wikipedia community on this article are doing their best to hide this fact. The video game community, social media and even general audiences are almost unanimous into thinking the critics are too harsh. It even seems as if the negative-hungry critic industry jumped on the occasion to write the most scathing reviews possible, because that attracts readership(and to that I allow to say to myself, DUH). I have no idea about wikipedia guidelines, but this movie will definitely grow into a cult movie following, which all other cult movies have NO TROUBLE writing in their article. There is no reason this side to the reaction should be CENSORED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.131.154 ( talk) 00:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of the critic reception section, add this:
Mark Kermode also gave a positive review of the film on the BBC Radio 5 Live show Kermode and Mayo's Film Review, praising the extent to which the director Duncan Jones (whom he rates highly) was able to give his own feel to the 'juggernaut' of the Warcraft franchise and showing surprise at his own emotional engagement with the film and the characters. [1] [2]
197.88.132.214 ( talk) 15:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
B E C K Y S A Y L E S
23:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Sorry, I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia rules. How do I establish consensus? Should I start a discussion about it? I'd like to hear about the pros and cons of doing it. The main reason why I wanted to add it back there was because it was in the article before and I don't see any reason to remove it. When a movie is getting mostly negative reviews it's sometimes helpful to include a counter-example, though I see that the article has kept the one from Crash Landed. 197.82.206.70 ( talk) 18:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The movie premiered in Paris and was out in France before the US. Change the date of release, the location and also the text that states that it premiered June the 6th because it's bullcrap...
https://blizzheart.com/en/wow/world-premiere-of-the-warcraft-movie-at-the-grand-rex/ 82.224.169.51 ( talk) 12:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Respectfully request an edit of information in the critical reception section of this article. "Although the critics reception has been primarily negative, the audience score has been overwhelmingly positive. Audience score on metacritic and rotten tomato's is 8.6 and 8.3 respectively."
As well as another edit below when mentioning the article written by Mr. Berkshire of Variety Magazine. The edit I would like to take place mentions how the article authored by Mr. Berkshire has been widely criticized for being inaccurate and bias. Here is a comment written by a reader "After reading this, and a few other of Mr. Berkshire’s literary works of art, it is clear to me that he is deeply and madly in love with his own voice. Drowned in cynisism and chalk full of a “word of the day calendar” volcabulary, Mr. B attempts to poo-poo on anything he is unfamiliar with. Case and point, his total lack of imagination and the diminishing attention span (due to years of trying to figure out how Twitter works) has lead him to write a piece on the film, “Warcraft.” The article, composed almost entirely of buzz words is begging to be picked up by CNN and reported as fact. However, the only fact is that Mr. B’s article seems to be fabricated entirely from bullshit, and lacks any sincerity or depth. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that Berkshire has never actually seen the film. If I had to guess the source of his information, it was most likely derived from bits and pieces of other articles that had been written by the likes of The NY Times and Forbes. The latter of which also wrote a review of the “Warcraft” film without even seeing the movie first. Either that, or he sent an intern who happens to be a 23 year old vegan social justice warrior to see the movie in lieu of himself, who undoubtedly came back “offended” after seeing it. Either way, writing an article criticizing anything that doesn’t fit into your pseudo- Bohemian existence is lame. Maybe you should leave movie reviews to Jeremy, the sandwich cart guy"
[1] [2] [3] Stefann Miles ( talk) 22:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
References
I do strongly propose another critic section in contrast to the "reputative" criticals. The "Reaction of the fans" differs completely, it is mainly strong positive, and that is the main target-group.
The audience gives a rating of 82% (of 44,219 ratings). Rotten Tomatoes [1] Metacritic: 86% (of 1,662 ratings) [2] IMDb: 76% (of 70.625 ratings) [1] → User: Perhelion 17:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add {{ Pp-semi}} template.
-- 186.84.46.227 ( talk) 20:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Duncan Jones stated the film is based on the first game (I could search for the interview if there is no such source here right now). I think we could declare in the article that the film is loosely based on the first game because it sure don't base directly on WC 2,3 or WOW (Though it borrow elements from WC2+3). Ben-Yeudith ( talk) 12:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
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.
I added the following sentence to the plot section:
It appears that user:4TheWynne reverted the edit saying "not as relevant to the plot as the information around it, as well as being poorly written". In order to avoid an edit war, I would like to have this discussed here instead.
From my perspective, the existence of Garona (a half orc half human in a realm that has no humans) is a mystery. Medivh's description of his travels is the only clue in the movie for how Garona might have come to be. Also, him sending her to Anduin is important to demonstrate her connection with humans (and the relationship Anduin has for her). So I would argue that this is quite important for the plot (even if not as the two sentences surrounding it). And if this is poorly written, I would appreciate a re-write instead of just reverting.
With regards, Tal Galili ( talk) 17:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
What fictional languages are talked in the film? Orkish and human ones, what are they? -- Infovarius ( talk) 20:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking that in the event Blizzard opts to release more films following up on the storyline of this one, then wouldn't it make sense to include the whole title as a means of differentiating it from other titles? Especially with regards to the first game, which is still titled as Warcraft. Simply put, I'm asking if we can change the article name to Warcraft: The Beginning so that interested will find it easier to differentiate from other titles in the series. Zach ( talk) 03:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
It's better clarify the meaning of "The Hollywood Reporter reported the film needed to earn at least $450 million to break-even.". The first thought of "break-even" is $160 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.124.154.124 ( talk) 18:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: P,TO 19104 ( talk · contribs) 20:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Lots of citations. Article is very pleasing passes all the following catergories
Well written: yes -- presents lots of comparisons
Verifiable with no original research: yes -- lots of citations
Broad in its coverage: yes
Neutral: yes -- seems so Stable: yes Illustrated: yes
This review was conducted by a new Wikipedian, taking about 20 minutes and clearly not following nor understanding the specific GA criteria. In a quick glance-through, I found grammatical issues, some places where concision and reorganization would help, and while I haven't checked the individual citations, it's clear that the reviewer did not either (nor did they check for close paraphrasing or copyvio), or the review would have taken far longer to do. It's clear that "no original research" isn't understood, either, if "lots of citations" is considered to be proof against it. I have removed the incorrectly placed templates on this page, and the nomination remains open. It is clear that a new reviewer will be needed. BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Rusted AutoParts and BlueMoonset: Hi guys, dropping by to give a second opinion on this article. I agree that the initial review is problematic, and the previous review for this article also doesn't seem that helpful. In my opinion, there is quite a bit of work needed to be done here to get this article up to scratch. As far as production information goes I frankly don't feel that there is broad enough coverage to pass a GA review. Especially for a film as big as this where there is surely far more information out there about how it was made. The box office section seems like overkill, and the critical response section is really just the bare minimum. The cast list could probably do with a re-write, it looks like it has been copied from a press release. My suggestion would be to fail this review, give Rusted a good amount of time to research and expand the article, then request a full copy edit before nominating the article for GA review again, but I won't make any decisions about the review until you guys have responded since I'm not the actual reviewer. - adamstom97 ( talk) 23:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I have to agree. At a first reading, lots of flags show: the lead jumps right into detail about the game scenario as if the reader knows this; the plot section is on the long side; the filming section is short enough and the music section seemingly unnecessary enough that the latter can be removed and the production section rid of sub-headings; the box office section is the longest part of the page, 6 paragraphs longer than the release section... that's not good... the box office section should never be that long normally, let alone in an article that skimps on details everywhere else; why talk about a sequel that is not happening? These things at least would be nice to fix before a GA nom, and should certainly be brought up during. Kingsif ( talk) 04:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Little is done since the last time anyone commented here. I wonder what's next... I,,.
iasO
05:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
If the feeling is there's still much to be done before a GA, then I'd say go ahead and fail. Rusted AutoParts 20:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
So there is some rumour news recently that a sequel could be in development afterall. My source on this is WoWhead (Community-run site. No official association with Blizzard), who cite a tweet from Chris Metzen, who based his news on this article by MovieWeb. Given the heading in the article is "Possible Sequel", I feel that we cannot not post rumours (obviously depending on level of reliability). We should either be able to provide this news, or change the section heading to something that does not attract said news. I'm more than happy to help filter out weightless gossip, but I'd argue the section's current heading is not appropriate. -- Tytrox ( talk) 06:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Warcraft(Film) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 25#Warcraft(Film) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
17:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
By the Mario Movie Serouj2000 ( talk) 18:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
@ Midwood123 The citations aren't in the lead, as per WP:LEADCITE. They are in Warcraft (film)#Box office, in the second sentence. Remember that the lede summarizes the article body. Usually the citations are in the body where the content is discussed. All three sources explicitly mention break even and quote "industry sources". This is very typical sourcing and appropriate. -- ferret ( talk) 21:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Warcraft(film) has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 20 § Warcraft(film) until a consensus is reached.
Steel1943 (
talk)
22:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Warcraft (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Warcraft" film – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Warcraft (film) was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
I've just noticed that Warcraft has been nominated for two Annie Awards:
http://annieawards.org/nominees/#11
http://annieawards.org/nominees/#14
Should these be included in the article? 197.88.132.236 ( talk) 20:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
So, what hasn't been mentioned in the article yet is that the DVD/Blu-Ray releases for the film are already on pre-order though they haven't been released yet. Should a section for home media be added to the article? It can be updated when they are released in October. 197.88.9.65 ( talk) 19:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Could I please request that the plot not be added yet, and that I write up the plot after June 16 when the film is released in Australia? I'm planning on seeing the movie on its opening night here, but I don't want to remove the article from my watchlist to avoid spoilers such a long way out from when I can see the movie, as I want to keep contributing to the article up until then. It would be unfair to put it in now, especially as it hasn't even been released domestically yet. Thanks. 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs) 08:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
There is an unregistered user (comes up as "2601:584:c500:192b:55b4:b032:2e32:f48b") that keeps removing parts of the article, and is removing part of a link whilst keeping the rest of the link intact. I have reverted the page twice, but someone might have to keep an eye on things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.232.229 ( talk) 12:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
By the way, there was previously a mention that Mark Kermode gave it a positive review. Why was that removed? Can someone revert that edit to put it back? It's still valid. 197.88.132.214 ( talk) 15:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
This edit was what expanded the plot summary, which I previously constrained within 700 words when I wrote the original one. There have been other edits to the plot summary since then, so I'm not going to revert it outright, but here is the original, shorter plot summary, in case someone wants to take a shot at shortening the current one. - Sikon ( talk) 07:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Should we add some more notes about the positive response of audiences in the review area or is that reserves mainly for critics and disregarding audience opinions? 63.225.80.36 ( talk) 21:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Could we change the sentence "The film received mostly negative reviews and has grossed over $306 million." to "Although the film received mostly negative reviews, it has grossed over $306 million."? Seems like this would better reflect the difference between critical and audience reactions without explicitly citing audiences as an objective source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.89.248 ( talk) 01:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok lets stop talking about political correctness and wikipedia guidelines for a second. This movie is clearly a hate or love movie, and the critics clearly hates it and audiences like it in general, and this wikipedia community on this article are doing their best to hide this fact. The video game community, social media and even general audiences are almost unanimous into thinking the critics are too harsh. It even seems as if the negative-hungry critic industry jumped on the occasion to write the most scathing reviews possible, because that attracts readership(and to that I allow to say to myself, DUH). I have no idea about wikipedia guidelines, but this movie will definitely grow into a cult movie following, which all other cult movies have NO TROUBLE writing in their article. There is no reason this side to the reaction should be CENSORED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.131.154 ( talk) 00:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of the critic reception section, add this:
Mark Kermode also gave a positive review of the film on the BBC Radio 5 Live show Kermode and Mayo's Film Review, praising the extent to which the director Duncan Jones (whom he rates highly) was able to give his own feel to the 'juggernaut' of the Warcraft franchise and showing surprise at his own emotional engagement with the film and the characters. [1] [2]
197.88.132.214 ( talk) 15:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
B E C K Y S A Y L E S
23:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Sorry, I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia rules. How do I establish consensus? Should I start a discussion about it? I'd like to hear about the pros and cons of doing it. The main reason why I wanted to add it back there was because it was in the article before and I don't see any reason to remove it. When a movie is getting mostly negative reviews it's sometimes helpful to include a counter-example, though I see that the article has kept the one from Crash Landed. 197.82.206.70 ( talk) 18:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The movie premiered in Paris and was out in France before the US. Change the date of release, the location and also the text that states that it premiered June the 6th because it's bullcrap...
https://blizzheart.com/en/wow/world-premiere-of-the-warcraft-movie-at-the-grand-rex/ 82.224.169.51 ( talk) 12:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Respectfully request an edit of information in the critical reception section of this article. "Although the critics reception has been primarily negative, the audience score has been overwhelmingly positive. Audience score on metacritic and rotten tomato's is 8.6 and 8.3 respectively."
As well as another edit below when mentioning the article written by Mr. Berkshire of Variety Magazine. The edit I would like to take place mentions how the article authored by Mr. Berkshire has been widely criticized for being inaccurate and bias. Here is a comment written by a reader "After reading this, and a few other of Mr. Berkshire’s literary works of art, it is clear to me that he is deeply and madly in love with his own voice. Drowned in cynisism and chalk full of a “word of the day calendar” volcabulary, Mr. B attempts to poo-poo on anything he is unfamiliar with. Case and point, his total lack of imagination and the diminishing attention span (due to years of trying to figure out how Twitter works) has lead him to write a piece on the film, “Warcraft.” The article, composed almost entirely of buzz words is begging to be picked up by CNN and reported as fact. However, the only fact is that Mr. B’s article seems to be fabricated entirely from bullshit, and lacks any sincerity or depth. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that Berkshire has never actually seen the film. If I had to guess the source of his information, it was most likely derived from bits and pieces of other articles that had been written by the likes of The NY Times and Forbes. The latter of which also wrote a review of the “Warcraft” film without even seeing the movie first. Either that, or he sent an intern who happens to be a 23 year old vegan social justice warrior to see the movie in lieu of himself, who undoubtedly came back “offended” after seeing it. Either way, writing an article criticizing anything that doesn’t fit into your pseudo- Bohemian existence is lame. Maybe you should leave movie reviews to Jeremy, the sandwich cart guy"
[1] [2] [3] Stefann Miles ( talk) 22:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
References
I do strongly propose another critic section in contrast to the "reputative" criticals. The "Reaction of the fans" differs completely, it is mainly strong positive, and that is the main target-group.
The audience gives a rating of 82% (of 44,219 ratings). Rotten Tomatoes [1] Metacritic: 86% (of 1,662 ratings) [2] IMDb: 76% (of 70.625 ratings) [1] → User: Perhelion 17:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add {{ Pp-semi}} template.
-- 186.84.46.227 ( talk) 20:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Duncan Jones stated the film is based on the first game (I could search for the interview if there is no such source here right now). I think we could declare in the article that the film is loosely based on the first game because it sure don't base directly on WC 2,3 or WOW (Though it borrow elements from WC2+3). Ben-Yeudith ( talk) 12:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
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.
I added the following sentence to the plot section:
It appears that user:4TheWynne reverted the edit saying "not as relevant to the plot as the information around it, as well as being poorly written". In order to avoid an edit war, I would like to have this discussed here instead.
From my perspective, the existence of Garona (a half orc half human in a realm that has no humans) is a mystery. Medivh's description of his travels is the only clue in the movie for how Garona might have come to be. Also, him sending her to Anduin is important to demonstrate her connection with humans (and the relationship Anduin has for her). So I would argue that this is quite important for the plot (even if not as the two sentences surrounding it). And if this is poorly written, I would appreciate a re-write instead of just reverting.
With regards, Tal Galili ( talk) 17:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
What fictional languages are talked in the film? Orkish and human ones, what are they? -- Infovarius ( talk) 20:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking that in the event Blizzard opts to release more films following up on the storyline of this one, then wouldn't it make sense to include the whole title as a means of differentiating it from other titles? Especially with regards to the first game, which is still titled as Warcraft. Simply put, I'm asking if we can change the article name to Warcraft: The Beginning so that interested will find it easier to differentiate from other titles in the series. Zach ( talk) 03:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
It's better clarify the meaning of "The Hollywood Reporter reported the film needed to earn at least $450 million to break-even.". The first thought of "break-even" is $160 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.124.154.124 ( talk) 18:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: P,TO 19104 ( talk · contribs) 20:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Lots of citations. Article is very pleasing passes all the following catergories
Well written: yes -- presents lots of comparisons
Verifiable with no original research: yes -- lots of citations
Broad in its coverage: yes
Neutral: yes -- seems so Stable: yes Illustrated: yes
This review was conducted by a new Wikipedian, taking about 20 minutes and clearly not following nor understanding the specific GA criteria. In a quick glance-through, I found grammatical issues, some places where concision and reorganization would help, and while I haven't checked the individual citations, it's clear that the reviewer did not either (nor did they check for close paraphrasing or copyvio), or the review would have taken far longer to do. It's clear that "no original research" isn't understood, either, if "lots of citations" is considered to be proof against it. I have removed the incorrectly placed templates on this page, and the nomination remains open. It is clear that a new reviewer will be needed. BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Rusted AutoParts and BlueMoonset: Hi guys, dropping by to give a second opinion on this article. I agree that the initial review is problematic, and the previous review for this article also doesn't seem that helpful. In my opinion, there is quite a bit of work needed to be done here to get this article up to scratch. As far as production information goes I frankly don't feel that there is broad enough coverage to pass a GA review. Especially for a film as big as this where there is surely far more information out there about how it was made. The box office section seems like overkill, and the critical response section is really just the bare minimum. The cast list could probably do with a re-write, it looks like it has been copied from a press release. My suggestion would be to fail this review, give Rusted a good amount of time to research and expand the article, then request a full copy edit before nominating the article for GA review again, but I won't make any decisions about the review until you guys have responded since I'm not the actual reviewer. - adamstom97 ( talk) 23:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I have to agree. At a first reading, lots of flags show: the lead jumps right into detail about the game scenario as if the reader knows this; the plot section is on the long side; the filming section is short enough and the music section seemingly unnecessary enough that the latter can be removed and the production section rid of sub-headings; the box office section is the longest part of the page, 6 paragraphs longer than the release section... that's not good... the box office section should never be that long normally, let alone in an article that skimps on details everywhere else; why talk about a sequel that is not happening? These things at least would be nice to fix before a GA nom, and should certainly be brought up during. Kingsif ( talk) 04:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Little is done since the last time anyone commented here. I wonder what's next... I,,.
iasO
05:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
If the feeling is there's still much to be done before a GA, then I'd say go ahead and fail. Rusted AutoParts 20:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
So there is some rumour news recently that a sequel could be in development afterall. My source on this is WoWhead (Community-run site. No official association with Blizzard), who cite a tweet from Chris Metzen, who based his news on this article by MovieWeb. Given the heading in the article is "Possible Sequel", I feel that we cannot not post rumours (obviously depending on level of reliability). We should either be able to provide this news, or change the section heading to something that does not attract said news. I'm more than happy to help filter out weightless gossip, but I'd argue the section's current heading is not appropriate. -- Tytrox ( talk) 06:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Warcraft(Film) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 25#Warcraft(Film) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
17:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
By the Mario Movie Serouj2000 ( talk) 18:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
@ Midwood123 The citations aren't in the lead, as per WP:LEADCITE. They are in Warcraft (film)#Box office, in the second sentence. Remember that the lede summarizes the article body. Usually the citations are in the body where the content is discussed. All three sources explicitly mention break even and quote "industry sources". This is very typical sourcing and appropriate. -- ferret ( talk) 21:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Warcraft(film) has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 20 § Warcraft(film) until a consensus is reached.
Steel1943 (
talk)
22:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)