Talk:Deadpool (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Carbrera (talk · contribs) 03:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I suggest failing since there's lately been lots of back-and-forth edits with the plot, plus there are pending accolades and hardly any reviews for such a critically and commercially successful film. Citation use and formatting isn't exactly up to par either. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Would you suggest even bringing this to the attention of the nominator, or just suggest going through a large expansion, and then perhaps nominating it for a copy–edit before re–nominating it again? Thanks for all of your help, Carbrera (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC).

@Captain Assassin!: What do you think of Snuggum and myself's idea? Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC).

A copyedit might help, but I'm more concerned about the breadth and citations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: As am I, and if you didn't know when it comes to the GA Cup, this was on the bottom of my to-do list for the same reasonings. Carbrera (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

First, it's reviewer's responsibility to point out the issues the article have, and then I will address those in a given time. Second, SNUGGUMS already auto-failed my nomination once, and it's not the right way to review a GAN. I want this review to proceed and I want your help in reaching it to the GA status. If you want a copy-edit of this article, I would suggest you to point every other issues and leave copy-edit on me for the end. Thanks for your time. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

You are correct with your first statement, however, an article cannot even be considered for GA if it is not broad in its coverage, something that this article is currently lacking. Also, I know that you created the article back in September 2014, but you have only edited it 20 times since its creation; yes, this is definitely not a problem in most cases, but you I am unaware of how familiar you are with this subject, since most of your recent edits to the article are rather unsubstantial. I don't mean this harshly, but large amounts of this article has unsourced sections, including the final statement in "Music", while other sections are hugely incomplete, resulting in this article from being "broad in its coverage". It's also increasingly difficult to promote an article that is as current as Deadpool is; there is still so much more that could be said of this article. I would be happy to re–review the article in the future, but it is not near GA quality at the moment. I would suggest points on expanding the article, and I believe I have, but I am not familiar enough with the topic to specifically address what this article is lacking. Like I said, please work on it and renominate it in the future, but at its current state I cannot pass it. Thank you, Carbrera (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC).

Some concerns

Incomplete

• "Deadpool was released on digital HD on April 26, 2016.[90] Reynolds announced on Twitter that the movie will be released on DVD and Blu-ray on May 10, 2016.[91]" --> I now own this movie so I know that more can be said here; this movie's DVD sales debuted atop some charts, including in the UK, and in American I'm sure. Plus the tense of this is now wrong since its nomination, and the release has already occurred.
• After seeing the movie myself and having it open at No. 1 in the US, I know that there are many, many more reviews out there to be added to the "Critical response" section. I can't speak on the same behalf for movies, but when I nominate a song article for GA-status, I 100% place every review I can find of the song into the article so that the section is sorta complete.
• "A sequel featuring Cable is joked about at the end of the movie (after the credits) by Deadpool himself." --> No source

• More to come. Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC).