Talk:For Your Eyes Only (film)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will start this review over the weekend.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's great - thanks Tony. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD
  • "collection For Your Eyes Only; the title story and "Risico"." is probably better as "For Your Eyes Only collection: the title story and "Risico"."
  • "The plot that has Bond going after a missile command system..." doesn't seem to need the word that.
  • $195.3 million needs a current dollar conversion to have meaning to today's reader. See similar conversions in the Bobby Orr article for example.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I altered your dollar conversion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did - thanks for that - I wasn't sure how it worked, but I'll use it correctly on the others. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually fancier ways to round to 1 or 2 places as needed. Look at Template:Inflation closely when you have a chance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is technically incorrect to correct worldwide grosses for US inflation. As explained by The Wall Street Journal (here: [1]) ticket prices have risen at different rates in different countries. To adjust the worldwide gross you would have to adjust the gross in each country and then ad dthem up, which we can't do when all we've got is the total. If you look at all the published adjusted charts such as the the ones at Box Office Mojo and the British Film Insititute they only adjust the US gross or the UK gross, never teh world wide gross. I very much doubt we can find a chart that adjusts grosses to compensate for inflation in every country. Betty Logan (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that is an industry standard then we should remove it here too. It just seems like it would help the reader to know what the U.S. inflation adjusted total of the U.S. $ donominated worldwide gross is. I understand price indexes and such and the imprecision. O.K. remove the adjustment from worldwide totals, but retain it for US and UK totals.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is the possibility of original research; I don't actually have a strong personal opinion either way, and I do agree some sort of inflation adjustment would be beneficial for comparitive analysis. My recommendation would be to use the BOM domestic adjusted figures. Even though they aren't "worldwide" figures, the adjusted domestic chart does tend to be used in lieu of an adjusted worldwide chart. I'm against doing the adjustments ourselves because some of the 60s and 70s films have had multiple releases, which complicates the calculations. Betty Logan (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some useful sources for adjusted grosses: BOM has a full chart here but it requires a Premier account (someone at the Film Project is bound to have one). The Numbers also has one here and has FYEO down for $101 million in today's money at the domestic box office. Betty Logan (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you might be doing some sort of Bond WP:GT. Am I correct. Which ones have passed and how many do you have left, if so?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great if we could get it that far. Since mid June we've got Dr. No, Goldfinger, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and The Man with the Golden Gun all passed as GA, with For Your Eyes Only going through the process now. We're currently working on Licence to Kill‎ at the moment (which was a bit messy when we started, but is getting there now and will then move on to Never Say Never Again (a complete and utter mess!), which will be the final one in the series to get to GA status. I'm not 100% sure whether we'll also have to get James Bond (film series) up to GA to qualify for the WP:GT. I'm also putting Dr. No through a Peer Review to see if I can push that up to WP:FA status at some point in the future... We'll see! - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you may be doing a series and even if not these are all related articles, you will want to do the inflation adjustment for all dollar amounts that are more than 10 years old in the other articles when you get a chance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks the heads-up on that one: I'll make a start on that shortly. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may be best to hold off for the time-being. I don't think it is correct to adjust worldwide grosses as outlined above in the manner suggested (no other film article does this), and if you include the British/American adjusted grosses, it may be best to source the figures from somewhere such as Box Office Mojo. Many pre-1980 Bond films had re-releases, so in the cases of the earlier ones, the figures would need adjusting for the different releases. If Tony still insists on worldwide adjustments I would prefer to run it by the Film Project first, because we would be creating data that no published source currently does. Betty Logan (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plot
  • Maybe link ballistic missiles, opium.
  • At some point up above you need to identify 007 as an alternate name for Bond. Don't assume the reader knows this. You should have at some point done something like James Bond, who is agent 007 and sometimes actually referred to as simply 007 or James Bond (Agent 007, sometimes simply 007).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since you should make sure you do this for the whole series, you want to do it right here. Check WP:DASH for proper usage. I think this is an Mdash situation, but check to make sure.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I'll do this at the same time as the inflation conversion on all the articles. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The extra '007' identification now done on all articles in the series. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please allow me to do all the strikes when I feel my concerns have been addressed. Just let me know what you have attempted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK - apols for that - I thought there might be an etiquette thing for that, but wasn't sure! - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cast
  • This section is a bit touchy. What you are presenting is different from what I am use to. I sort of feel the most proper is the very brief style of Die Another Day, if not just actor and character name. However, I see in your topic, there is also Quantum of Solace, which has a paragraph for each. The kicker is that the only WP:FA, Casino Royale is styled like you are presenting here, except that it has no citations in the section. You either have to have a citation for every character or for none. I think I would pursue the style of the FA in this case and remove all footnotes here, making sure that all the facts are cited in the main text.
  • The big problem is that at WP:GT they are suppose to tell you to make all these sections have the same format. You should anticipate being told to make all the cast sections look alike.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the areas of WP weakness, IMHO: there is no clear and consistent policy for the layout of Cast. I'm putting Dr. No through a peer review at the moment (see Wikipedia:Peer review/Dr. No (film)/archive1‎) and was advised to keep the cast section simple with a beefed-up Casting sub-section in Production, which I have just done. My problem with Casino Royale is that much of the info in the Cast section is not cited anywhere (consider the following "This is the first Eon-produced Bond film in which Leiter is played by a black actor. (The only other black actor to portray Leiter was Bernie Casey in Never Say Never Again, which was not produced by Eon.)" I've looked in both the Cast and Casting sections as well as the general article and no citations for this information at all.)
If we have to go any direction, I'd prefer to go the Die Another Day (and now Dr. No) way and argue the difference with the GT review about Casino Royale having a different format because it is an FA article... Would you be happy if we did it in that way? - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Film's MOS provides three distinct formats at WP:CASTLIST; however, the one common feature is that all three provide background information, and the Die Another Day actually seems inadequate by the issued guidelines. The MOS states: The key is to provide significant behind-the-scenes production information. Of course, some film articles will lend themselves to one style better than others. On that basis Die Another Day would probably fail a GA review due to the weakness of the casting section. I personally thought the approach we took at Dr No is the way to go. The Cast list as it is now certainly complies with the guidelines. The problem we've been facing on these articles is that some of them have been demoted because they fall short of new GA criteria, or have strayed too far away from the model that was passed, so we have to be careful about treating older GA articles as 'models', and perhaps we should be taking a closer look at Die Another Day to make sure it still meets the criteria, and make sure it still complies with GA. Betty Logan (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. So I'd say stay with the current format and just decide whether to cite each one or go without citation for them all. That still does not help us when the impending topic becomes at issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can gather, a cast list itself doesn't need sourcing if the actor is credited in the film (since it can be verified by watching the film just like with the plot); sometimes sources are included if the cast list deviates from the credit order. However, if you include information on the casting process then that needs to be sourced because that's a claim that can't be verified by just viewing the film. If the actor isn't credited in the film (such as voice dubs etc) then that will need to be independently sourced. MOSFILM provides quite a lot of freedom on how to format casting (most styles comes down to personal preference—I prefer to just incorporate casting into the production section and not bother with a cast list since a reader can easily look it up on IMDB anyway) so generally its left to the whim of the editors; the main focus should always be on the casting process though, and that should be sourced. Betty Logan (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to present ACTOR as CHARACTER and nothing else it does not have to be sourced. If you are going to add two or three sentences about the character, I think it should be sourced, although this might be an extension of the plot sourcing rules.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are on the same wavelength here. If the claim about the character is a clearly unambiguous plot detail i.e. James Bond is a secret agent, then the film is a reasonable source. If you discuss aspects of the character that are open to interpretation i.e. Pussy Galore is a lesbian, then it probably needs to be sourced. Betty Logan (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to say that normal "rules" for MOS with cast section don't apply to Bond films. They are different to most other films in this respect.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Production
 Done - the correct en dashes now in place. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They were en dashes. That is no change. However, I see that the WP:EMDASH section has been rewritten to allow for either Unspaced em dash or Spaced en dash. The second alternative is relatively new MOS guideline for Punctuating a sentence (em or en dashes).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Music
 Done I've linked 1981 to the right place on the page too, but if you think that's over linking, please let me know and I'll get rid of it. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant for you to choose the proper article at 1981 Academy Awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do the same for the Golden Globes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Release and reception
I took it out. Because if referred to single night's takings at a UK cinema, a conversion is not needed (and if so, why just the US$?); we would also have ended up with a sentence that ran "....a gross of £14,998.[49] (£42,850 in 2011 pounds[50]) ($29,696)[49] ($xx,xxx in 2011 dollars[51])" which seems to be labouring the point slightly. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • We would not convert original dollar conversions again to current dollars. So it would be something like £14,998.[49] (£42,850 in 2011 pounds[50])— ($29,696).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem we have with the updating format is that is does not agree with the sources. The article states "The film grossed $54.8 million in the United States..." The quoted source used is The Numbers, as against the WP template. The differences in the figures generated are below.

  • WP Template: $132 million in 2011 dollars
  • The Numbers: $101.5 million at 2011 ticket prices

Your call as to which should be used, but The Numbers is an independent and verifiable source. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • How about this. Provide the reader with both. (equivalent to $101.5 million at 2011 ticket prices[52] or $132 million in 2011 dollars adjusted for general inflation)? 2nd opinion welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, although the sentence now reads as follows and is, I think, slightly convoluted:

The film grossed $54.8 million in the United States,[51] (equivalent to $101.5 million at 2011 ticket prices[52] or $132 million in 2011 dollars,[53] adjusted for general inflation) and $195.3 million worldwide,[54] becoming the second highest grossing Bond film after its predecessor, Moonraker.[51]

  • Should we add that it was the third highest grossing in the U.S.
  • Do you have inflation adjusted figures? At James_Bond_film_series#Films, it seems that this is 3rd lowest when adjusted for inflation of the first 12.
  • Except for the other 4 John Glen films, which were all lower, the only three of the first 22 EON films (17 others excluding Glen films) to have lower adjusted Grosses are Tomorrow Never Dies, Dr. No, The Man with the Golden Gun.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately box office data for 30 year old films is pretty limited (it's pretty hard just finding worldwide grosses for films of this era). The Numbers seems to enjoy the same level of credibility as Box Office Mojo, and is listed as a reliable source for box office at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Resources#Box_office. US figures can probably be sourced through Variety dailies (online here but that's probably the only realistic option. Betty Logan (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contemporary reviews
  • Spell check the article I am seeing furore and wlthough in this section.
 Done for wlthough, but not for furore - nothing wrong with the spelling in British English. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reflective reviews
  • Is 69% good or bad? How does it compare to the rest of the series? (maybe state the mean or median of the series)  Done by Igordebraga - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 12 among the bond films leaves me wondering two things. 1.) how many bond films. (12 among the 23 bond films might be better) 2.) is that a good group to compare with. This is the exact median of the bond films, but 69% could still be really good or really bad. Do we assume that a reader knows what an average rating is for that service.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It now reads as 12th among the 22 Bond films. To work out the means and medians starts pushing us into WP:OR and having to justify the maths behind it all as RT does not give an aggregate score for the series (if it does then I can't find it!) As 69% is an absolute figure (ie it sits on a point between 0 and 100) I think it gives a flavour as to how the film is rated overall. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • IGN chose For Your Eyes Only as the sixth best Bond film, should mention either the year or how many had been made at the time of this statement.
  • Same for similar subsequent statements.
  • Likewise with Bond girl stuff.
 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of henchmen in For Your Eyes Only and List of Bond's allies in For Your Eyes Only probably belong in the cast section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. I may need a second opinion on what the MOS is for cast sections of film articles.
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. I'd like to see a bit more detail about its box office performance and ratings.

 Done - The reflective reviews have been beefed up and the performance for this film have now been extensively covered. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. I am not sure that File:Tracy Bond gravestone.jpg is not sculptural enough that it counts as 3D art. What is it made of?
I'm not sure anyone will know: it is a photo of a prop taken at a convention and I presume that they wouldn't let anyone touch it to find out. I've had a good search but can find no further information as to its construction. If necessary it can be removed, but it looks like it's been on here (and on WikiCommons) since January 2006. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to keep it, find out if it is considered a sculpture at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions‎.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if it stays it should be proximal to the text "The sequence begins with Bond laying flowers at the grave of his late wife".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image moved to the suggested location & question asked on the Media Copyright page. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial answer back - see Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You still have the other image issue with the CAPTIONS>
I have removed the image, pending a decision from the Media Copyright people. If they say it is okay, then I will put the image back in where it was. If they say not, then I do not propose putting the image in - it is not of sufficient note in its own right to earn a place on a non-free basis. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. WP:CAPTIONs repeatedly use full stop periods when there is no complete sentence.
 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not actually fixed. Tombstone still wrong.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done now reads as one complete sentence. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the verb? Do you mean is shown or is shown here?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are two verbs here, but I've clarified the sentence slightly either way to be clear. All we now now need on this is the above question on the grave marker. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Overall assessment. Pending


Responding to the request for a second opinion here. The cast section does follow MOS, but entries that only use in-universe material should be avoided, and it is a little long. I'd remove anything that doesn't have sourced information about the actual casting and actors to trim it down and bring it back into line. GRAPPLE X 21:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input, but I'm still a little unclear: you say the section is too long, but I have gone over WP:CASTLIST and can find no limits on size of the section at all. If you look over a number of FA articles, such as Richard III or The Mummy and you'll see much more involved sections such as we have here – and less well cited than the standards we have worked to here. With the exception of the actual names of actors and characters, nothing in the Cast section of this article is uncited. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't mean to say anything is currently uncited - what I mean is that if any of the entries don't go beyond the in-universe information, and don't have anything that could be added in terms of real-world information, then they could probably be gotten rid of - whilst there's no limit on length (short of WP:SPINOUT but you're not there yet), cast sections are generally intended to highlight the casting process and the actors' side of things, rather than in-universe information and the characters' side of things. Wikipedia:MOSFILM#Cast has a few examples to help - Witchfinder General (film) is a good one to go by. Also, from what I've seen, the cast sections of film articles can get away with summarising some of the information from elsewhere in the article, if for example several of the roles are discussed in the 'Reception' or 'Production' sections. I certainly have no problem with it. GRAPPLE X 11:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does in-universe mean?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pertaining to the fictional universe of the film, such as describing the role of James Bond as a spy as opposed to describing Bond as a part being acted. GRAPPLE X 14:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I think the Cast section is adequate for a GA (in that it doesn't violate MOSFILM and uit does have third-party coverage of the casting—thus covering the main bases), I do agree with Grapple that the emphasis on the character information weakens the enclyclopedic nature of the article to a degree. I think this can be addressed in two ways: 1) Merge the casting section into the Cast list (or vice versa), so all the casting information is together; 2) I notice there are sub-articles about the characters, so maybe we can move all the "in universe" stuff about the characters to those, and style the cast section along the lines of the one at Witchfinder General (film), which is a FA. I think it is important to note that MOS:FILM provides a lot of leeway in how casting is covered, but if we could bring it into line with one of the recommended styles I think it would be of benefit to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're beginning to go round in circles here, so I'll drop in the obvious question which someone may be able to answer clearly for me. If the layout we have used here is closely akin to the FA-class articles Richard III, The Mummy and Casino Royale (indeed we have improved on these by citing all our information) AND if this article does not go against any guidelines provided by WP:CASTLIST, then on what basis does this article have to be changed? Before anyone starts answering the question, please also look at another GA-rated Bond film article, Quantum of Solace. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it has to be changed to pass GA, since as far as I can see it still complies with the MOS; however, if you look at those FA articles they only have one casting section. This article has two casting sections, and in doing so the first section is weakened by separating some of the real-world casting content from it. So in short, I think the article would be strengthened if the two sections were combined into one section and then the "in universe" descriptions wouldn't dominate the section so much. That said, I don't think it's a deal-breaker for GA since the only requirement GA places on the article is third party coverage of the casting, which the article does do. Betty Logan (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like to see what is going to happen with the tombstone, but the article as it stands is fine and I commend the hard work of the nominator. I also thank the bevy of 2nd respondents about the cast and casting. I anticipate that the article will soon be part of a WP:GTC nomination and am interested in seeing how the various cast sections are adressed in that discussion. I will pass the article here right now, however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's great - thanks Tony. I'll drop you a line on your talk page once we have a final landing on the grave stone. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tombstone itself isn't mentioned in the article prose. It is perhaps nice eye candy if it is in fact free (and I seriously doubt that actually). But, is it really necessary? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's out for th emoment, but if it's free then it'll go back in. If it's not free then it'll be up for discussion, although I think it would be worth putting it in. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to throw a wrench in the works, but I fail to see the need of File:FYEOcomicbook.jpg in the For_Your_Eyes_Only_(film)#Comic_book_adaptation section. The cover itself isn't mentioned, and this non-free image is being used to support just three sentences. The fair use justification on the image's description page is very weak, effectively just "illustration". That's not sufficient. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:For_Your_Eyes_Only_(film)/GA1&oldid=1079340607"