Talk:V for Vendetta (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article as requested at GAN. On the first reading it looks nearly ready for promotion to GA status, but there are a some minor issues that need to be fixed, particulary regarding the prose and MOS compliance. I'll post detailed comments in the next few days. Best, Ktlynch (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Structure

"Cast" Normally I am against seperate cast sections unless there is an overwhelming need to do so, however, here the section is well written and sourced and contains useful information. Some of the character descriptions and wikilinks should incorporated into the plot section so that a reader can understand the story and later discussion of the characters with reference to the cast section if he so wished.

If I'm not mistaken, appositives are used in the plot to describe the characters.--Iankap99 (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last four minor characters should be deleted. Their inclusion makes the list too long, and, what is more, there is original research included in their descriptions.

Done--Iankap99 (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Modern fear of Totalitarianism" Apart from its unfortunate name, this section belongs in "Themes". That critics have pointed it out is not the relevant point, all information in the article should be based on what experts have said.

Done (I think)--Iankap99 (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Home media" The first paragraph should be properly called "DVD" since it deals with the film's release on that medium. The section "CDs" in "Marketing" duplicates information here. The latter should be merged with the former.

Done--Iankap99 (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Marketing"

This section, perhaps based named something like "In other media", should be merged entirely with "home media" and placed as the last section in the article.

Done--Iankap99 (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other media

DVD Music Books - include a line or two about the "novelisation" of the film. It is mentioned elsewhere in the article, but not explicitly dealt with. A line or two about the author and its relation to the film project should suffice.

It's mentioned in the lead, he distanced himself from the film, therefore not much information on the relationship--Iankap99 (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other

"Release"

This section should be made a sub-section of the proceeding section.

Done--Iankap99 (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Quotation boxes" - longer ones should be moved to the size of the page to avoid breaking it up too much.

I don't know how to format anything on wikipedia, would you mind doing that?--Iankap99 (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Themes For a film like this one, the themes section should be a significant part of the article containing a serious discussion of the ideas proposed. This is different from the criticial reception, where the judgements of the film's artistic merits are reported. A themes section actually discusses what the ideas are, based on reflection from established critics and writers. Be careful to avoid amateur partisan political comments of the "the liberals/conservatives/tories/communists etc out there are brainwashing our children variety"

As it stands, the first part of the section (which has no sub heading) compares the film to other works and suggests inspirations. In any case, this section should have a sub-heading and a tighter style. It strikes me that the letter V and the number 5 is not a theme of the film, but a motif in the film. It is worthy of mention, but not with the exhaustive list style done so here. So I am wondering is these sub-sections should be moved to a different main section which contains cinematic analysis, the comic book style lends it self to multiple allusions. The main themes of the film is the balance between freedom and security, the justifiable use of violence and the merits of opposing political views. THis is only really touched on in the last section.

The sub-section "Fears of Modern Totalitarianism" is perhaps rather exaggeratingly named. Essentially the section deals with how the filmmakers changed the story and political context from 1980s Britain to the 21st century. The specific details mentioned work well, it gives readers a clear understanding of what creates the theme of fear of tyranny. The name could be changed, and an introductory sentence stating what McTeigue says at the end. "The filmmakers hoped to address security, freedom and politics in the 21st century"

3. Global perspective

At times the article feels like it suffers from an American perspective, in content and prose. Though is was produced by an American film studio, it is set in England and was released across the world. If possible, try to find reviews and information from other countries.

4. Prose The article is generally well-written, but at times Americanisms or casual speech slip in.

"Jonathan Ross blasted the film..." In the next senetence the tense changes from past to present: "Sean Burns of Philadelphia Weekly gives the film a 'D',..." (emphasis mine)

Done (I think)--Iankap99 (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. Lead Section In an article of this size, the lead should be three good sized paragraphs. Try to hit most points covered in the article once and not dwell on any one aspect.

6. Images Some more images could be found to illustrate the article, for a modern film like this quality photos should be freely avaliable. Try to find ones that demonstrate points unique to this film.

Wouldn't they be copyrighted?--Iankap99 (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7. Misc When giving earnings, be sure to put the date from which the figure is from. Presumably sales slow down after the initial release, but they still continue.

The reception seems to have been uneven rather than mostly positive, critics were either generally praiseworthy (with minor misgivings) or quite negative (with minor concessions). There also appears to be a US/UK divide, the former largely liking the film, the latter thinking of it poorly. Is there any evidence or sources to support this?

Overall, I congrulate editors on what has clearly been conscientious work on the article. Despite these criticisms I do not think the article is too far from GA level and encourage all who know the material to make a final push for that standard. I know from experience that it's the hardest part, but it's definitely worth it!http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:V_for_Vendetta_(film)/GA1&action=edit

How long do i have?--Iankap99 (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline says about seven days, I think that's more than adequate to do what needs to be done. I'm not too strict though, just make a fair effort:) --Ktlynch (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: There have been useful structural improvements to the article, and lots of copyediting which has improved the prose. I've left the review drag on a little because thus it is beginning to look right, and contains lots of interesting information, I have some naggling concern that I can fully articulate. Here's a few final issues:

Differences between the film and graphic novel. The last two paragraphs of this section reek of OR.

Other references: cite something for amazon sales. The "novelisation" needs a citation, the book's basic publication information would be sufficient.

I think the lead also needs some expansion, I'll do that.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Small casual sounding expressions have been weeded out, though undoubt more remain. Article tone has improved, no glaring typos.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
No lists, plot summary is only what is neccessary, lead section will be expanded moderately, good structure.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
References are formatted correctly.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
There remain several ^{[citation needed]} tags to be cleared up

C. No original research:
There is a little pooh-pooh of OR in the graphic novel section. Some professional commentary would be useful there.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
It hits most aspects of making a film

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Formerly it lacked a global perspective, but doesn't seem very NPOV
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
No problems here
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Adqueate fair use rationales provided for both pictures. I would like to see more illustrations though.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the lack of progress on addressing these points, I must unfortunately fail the article. I think it is basically a sound article, but needs some more careful attention to reach GA status. I'm happy to work with any editor who wants to push it over the line. Best wishes, --Ktlynch (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]