Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (film)/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 08:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. Thank you. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 08:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General[edit]

Change the reference publishers which are named "Superhero Hype!" to "CraveOnline" as the former is a redirect to the latter. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 08:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - adamstom97 (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
References #64, #66, #69, #71, #73, #75-76, #79, #82 and #133-135 are from social networking sites. Find newspaper sources which mention them and replace the references I have mentioned here. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 13:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- All of those sources, and how they are used, are permissible per WP:SOCIALMEDIA. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I see. Then let the references be. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 05:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For ref no #253 can you insert the name of the publisher, which is missing. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 10:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - adamstom97 (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

"and the supporting cast was filled out over the next several months." — Can you rephrase it as "and the supporting cast members were subsequently confirmed."? This would suffice. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 08:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Not sure why, but okay.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TriiipleThreat: Actually, "the next several months" sounds a little vague in terms of detail. That's why. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 08:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

Well laid out. Can you, by any chance, try and trim it further? I managed to do a c/e for it and brought it down to 698 words from 716. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 09:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We generally try to keep the plot section around/under 700 words, so unless there is anything you specifically have noticed, I don't think there is any real need to trim it further. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not a big deal but fine nevertheless. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 09:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cast[edit]

Nothing much here. But is "Stitch Kingdom" reliable? — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 05:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, yes. We have been using it on several other articles a bit recently as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Production[edit]

Development[edit]

"and one featuring the full team" — replace "full" with "entire". — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 09:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Writing[edit]

"was offered several of their lesser known properties to base a screenplay on." — Source? — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 09:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref #94 is the source. Let me know if you'd like an additional tag there, or a slight reword. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can place the "ref name" thing beside that sentence. An additional tag using the same ref no #94. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 08:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done - adamstom97 (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is ref no #97 reliable? Doesn't seem so. Can you find a better source for the sentence? — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 09:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a direct interview with the director, but I'll see if I can come up with something else. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ref no #98 also doesn't seem reliable. Here is a better source. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 09:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Slate source is just reprinting the quote from Film Divider. Why not just use the direct source? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Slate is more reliable. I recommend you use that as it has an article on Wikipedia. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 08:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand what your thinking, but we always use the original source, rather than an article referencing another article. And just because it doesn't have a page on Wikipedia, doesn't necessarily mean it isn't reliable. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, if that's the case then ok. The matter is settled. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 09:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The section has a lot of quotes. Can you explain what Gunn says rather than just paste the quote? You can create a quotebox for one of them as well. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 09:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-production[edit]

This is better source than the current ref no #109. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 08:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Same as above. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"In May, Marvel offered John C. Reilly the role of Rhomann Dey." — Where's the source for this sentence? — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 08:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - adamstom97 (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"were polishing the script." — can be rephrased as "were providing the finishing touches to the script." — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 08:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - adamstom97 (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For ref no #118, Can you explain what Gunn says rather than just paste the quote? — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 08:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - adamstom97 (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Filming[edit]

Explain the quotes for ref nos #26 and #27. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 08:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - adamstom97 (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Post-production[edit]

"On casting Brolin, Feige said, "We reached out to him and it was one of those things that does not happen all the time but when it does it’s very nice, where he was totally intrigued. He was a fan of what we did, he met with Jeremy Latcham in a hotel in London and learned about the characters a little bit. I spoke to him on the phone a few times. We ran it by James who loved it, ran it by Joss [Whedon] who loved it because Thanos is in this universe because of Avengers. Then we shot him and recorded for it." — This would serve better as a quote in a quotebox. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 12:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I used a blockquote instead, so that it can be read inline with the other Thanos / Brolin info. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph has some big quotes. Explain them rather than just pasting the quote. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 12:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - adamstom97 (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Visual effects[edit]

Again the quotes. Explain them. You can use quoteboxes for them if you like. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 12:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - adamstom97 (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Release[edit]

Marketing[edit]

I'm not sure if the footage of baby Groot dancing qualifies as a post-credits scene; the one with Howard the Duck only is. Moreover, the source does not describe the scene as being "post-credits". Kailash29792 (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Total Film noted how the opening clip was reminiscent of Raiders of the Lost Ark, which Gunn stated was a big influence for Guardians" can be rephrased as "Total Film noted the similarity of the trailer's opening clip to the 1981 film, Raiders of the Lost Ark, which Gunn stated was a big influence for Guardians of the Galaxy." — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 09:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - adamstom97 (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion[edit]

There isn't much changes to be made in the "Critical reception" and "Box office" sections and also the "Sequel" section looks good. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 10:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
Pass or Fail:

The current version passes the GA criteria. Congrats! — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 13:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]