Talk:We Are X

Good article nomination?

Having just expanded this article a bit and now that the film has been released on disc in the USA and UK at least, I was wondering whether the article on We Are X is good enough to be promoted to Good Article status. If you think there is still work that needs to be done let me know. ISD (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:We Are X/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bluesphere (talk · contribs) 03:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Happy to give this one a review. I'll have to thoroughly examine the article first. Bluesphere 03:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Resolved first pass

Infobox About the poster caption, "Theatrical release poster" will do nicely. The "starring" parameter is way too long. Just leave the names from Yoshiki to Taiji, besides they are the top-billed cast in the poster. Just leave Drafthouse Films as the official distributor of this movie, Per WP:FilmDist, the distributor(s) should be restricted to the country or countries that produced the film. The same rationale goes to the "release date" parameter, I suggest removing the UK and Japan release dates. I don't think the runtime you provide is correct. The BBFC, which is the recognized reliable source for this parameter per Template: Infobox film, says that the movie runs at 101 minutes. [1] According to The Numbers, the movie had an $84,113 worldwide gross, something you might wanna add in the "gross" parameter. Lead For the most part, important aspects of the article are covered here, but... the band's break up 1997 and reunion in 2007, - in 1997 plus interviews and contributions from western musicians such as... should be Western We Are X won the Sundance Film Festival Award for "Best Editing" ... South by Southwest's Audience Award for "Excellence in Title Design" the quotes are unnecessary since this is a distinction, hence the uppercase. Plot summary While everything is verified in the source given, this section should be self-contained per WP:FILMPLOT since the movie itself is the source. However, I'm not quite sure if this is permissible on a case-by-case basis. Maybe I'll just request for a second opinion regarding this. refs 4 and 5 don't have their own authors inline, please give credit where it is due. Production Again, please provide attribution to original authors of references 2, 8, 12 and 13 inline The documentary was announced on July 4, 2015. I believe it's July 5. Yoshiki was convinced to do the film by his agent, Marc Geiger of William Morris Endeavor, and according to Kijak, - should be "and according to director Stephen Kijak," Director Stephen Kijak said... Kijak said Wikilink for principal photography since not many know this filmmaking jargon, when in reality, it just means "the film shoot". About the "Title design" subheader, remove the quotes in Excellence in Title Design More later. In the meantime, here are a few things to start with. Bluesphere 05:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Returning... Release Probably best to divide this section into three subheaders: a "Theatrical run and box office" (reports about the movie's premiere at festivals, theaters, and such), "Critical reception" (critics' reaction to the movie), "Home media" (DVD/Blu-ray release and sales), and "Accolades" (awards, nominations, and recognitions received by this movie) We Are X was scheduled to have its "world premiere" Is there a reason that "world premiere" should be enclosed with quotation marks? The same goes to, It had its "US premiere". There should be a report about how much did this movie earned at the box office. According to The Numbers, the movie earned $45,270 in the US and Canada, and $84,806 worldwide. Please do add this, under "Theatrical run and box office" subsection I requested. [2] Soundtrack All good. Reception The second, third, and fourth paragraphs of this section should be moved into the "Home media" subsection I requested atop the "Release" comments; whereas the fifth paragraph to the "Home media" subsection I also requested per above. We Are X received positive to mixed reviews. Unreferenced. Metacritic gave We Are X a rating of 64 out of 100 based on 10 reviews. What does the site's 64% rating indicates, is it "mixed reviews", "generally favorable"? Ian Wolf, writing for On The Box, praised the film saying, "it brings together the music and both the on-stage and off-stage personas of the band, especially Yoshiki, to tell a great story. It is a story that deserves to be told, mainly because X Japan has earned the right to be heard. Perhaps just replace this review with a much more encouraged print review. Replace it with the one from The New York Times: [3]. Might wanna add these reviews from mainstream papers, too: [4], [5], [6]. (Please don't forget to add the authors inline.) Refs 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 44 have no authors inline. Please add. Francis Rizzo III from DVD Talk meanwhile added that: "Impressively, throughout the down times and over the course of the film's brisk 95 minutes, the energy never feels like it's dipping. To be able to hold an audience's interest in a documentary about a band whose songs are completely foreign (no pun intended), is the sign of a film well made." Just move this to the "Home media" subsection I requested per above, and maybe change the author's comments into ones about his reaction to DVD/Blu-ray transfer, instead. The Hollywood Reporter said that while the film does cover the deaths of two X Japan members..." Whose comments from THR? The same goes to this one, The Guardian gave the film a rating of three stars out of five, whose Guardian staff was this comment attributed from? That's all there is to me. I will now officially put this on hold, good luck. Bluesphere 05:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC) *@Bluesphere: Hi there - I've think I've carried out all the changes you requested. I've added all the names to references that I could see were credited. (Some didn't mention a name) ISD (talk) 10:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Resolved second pass

Alright, let's examine this again from top to bottom: Infobox Restore the US release date; I only said that you remove the UK and Japan releases. No need to leave the domestic gross here, we'll save this one in the article. Just leave the worldwide gross intact and use the {{small}} for "(worldwide)" to appear smaller. Lead Critical reception for the film was mixed, with praise for the story and uplifting nature of the movie, but criticism for focusing too much on Yoshiki rather than the band as a whole. On this sentence you've got two choices: rephrase it by covering what you believe is another vital info in the article (as long as it's sourced elsewhere in the article), or remove it on account of being unreferenced and use We Are X won the Sundance Film Festival Award for Best Editing in the World Cinema Documentary Competition and South by Southwest's Audience Award for Excellence in Title Design. as the last sentence of the second paragraph. Up to you. Title design At the box office, the film made $45,270 in the US and Canada, and $84,806 worldwide. Merge this to the "Theatrical run and box office" subsection and use it as the last sentence of the first paragraph. Critical reception Before its premiere, Rolling Stone listed We Are X as one of the 25 movies they were looking forward to see at Sundance. Also before its first screening, Dazed Digital listed it as one of the must watch music documentaries of 2016. Yahoo! Music named it number 4 on their list of the 10 Best Music Documentaries of 2016. [...] When the film was released in the UK, We Are X reached No. 2 in the Official Charts Company's Music Video chart, and the Blu-Ray Steelbook version of the film reached No. 50 in the Blu-Ray chart in the first week of it's release. I don't think this is the right place to be putting these two paragraphs. Maybe just rename the "Accolades" section into "Accolades and recognitions" and merge it there as the second paragraph. Make sure you combine these into a single paragraph beforehand. Also "it's" → "its". Combine the reviews from Newsweek to Exclaim into a single paragraph to avoid cluttering. Same goes to the reviews from The Guardian to The Village Voice. Home media This section should go before the critical reception. Merge. Accolades Just combine the paragraphs into a single one. And, like I said above, merge those two paragraphs from the critical reception and use them as the second paragraph of this section. ISD, here are a few comments to work on. Bluesphere 13:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC) Bluesphere, I think I've carried out the changes correctly, but I'm not 100% sure. I'm sure the home media section already came before the critical reception section. ISD (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: