Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deadpool (film)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2018 [1].

Deadpool (film)

Nominator(s): adamstom97 (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deadpool is a 2016 film that was a critical and commercial success, breaking numerous box office records and being nominated for several major awards, which has gone on to impact the wider film industry by inspiring similar films (R-rated superhero films) to be made. I did extensive work researching and re-writing this article through 2016 and early 2017, and in July 2017 it passed a very thorough GA review. The reviewer, JohnWickTwo, encouraged me to pursue FA-status for the article, and I have had time to make some tweaks and improvements since then to the point that I now believe the article is worthy of such status. Thanks in advance for considering this article! - adamstom97 (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1

I've only looked at prose, in the lead. The writing is not of FA standard. I believe the nomination is premature, and that you should withdraw, rework, and resubmit. The lead is a hard part to write, but already there's too much evidence of grammatical ambiguity, and you've made your task all the harder by jumbling together a high density of facts. Check check check that the meaning of every item throughout the article is clear, and that the phrases and clauses make sense in their context (they bounce off each other, so hunt down unintended meanings).

"Deadpool is a 2016 American superhero film based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, distributed by 20th Century Fox." So 20th Century Fox distributed the Marvel Comics character? Move the last phrase to an earlier position and add "and".
"In the film, Wilson hunts down the man who gave him mutant abilities, but also a scarred physical appearance, as the antihero Deadpool." It's a bit redundant to start with those three words; but without them there's a slight thematic bump ... which suggests this could be relocated as third sentence. I don't understand "as the antihero Deadpool": who is that?
"Development ~~of a Deadpool film starring Reynolds~~ began in February 2004, before he Reynolds went on to play the character in X-Men Origins: Wolverine in 2009." It's a bit confusing to jumble these details in. It's the lead, so can't it be streamlined?
"Reese and Wernick were hired for a spinoff in 2010, and worked with Reynolds to more faithfully adapt the character (including his fourth wall breaking) after the portrayal in Wolverine was criticized for not doing so." Not doing what? Hiring? Adapting? Portraying? Do you mean: "... to more faithfully adapt the character to the original comic (including its breaking of the fourth wall)"?
"Miller was hired in 2011 for his directorial debut, and an enthusiastic response to leaked test footage he created with Reynolds led to a green-light from Fox in 2014." "For" is ambiguous (means "in recognition of"? Probably not.)—again, jumbling in too many things. Relax the text out a bit. The next bit (, and an ...) only becomes clear at the word "led", in reverse.
It's not Vancouver in Washington state, right? Probably Vancouver, BC, is enough. Unsure it needs a link, unless you pipe it to the actual studio in Vancouver (that would be cool, but ...).
Contextual redundancy: "Additional casting began in early 2015, and filming took place in Vancouver from March to May ~~of that year~~."
Is this important enough to put in the lead? "Visual effects were provided by multiple vendors and ranged from the addition of blood and gore to the creation of the CG character Colossus."
Bit of a teaser, the linked "unconventional". Readers shouldn't have to divert from the lead to another article to learn what you're talking about. I'd save it for the body of the article. "Deadpool was released in the United States on February 12, 2016, after an unconventional marketing campaign."
"The film became both a financial and critical success." Why "became" instead of plain "was"? Why stress "both"?
It ... it ... not so good. "It earned over $783 million against a $58 million budget, breaking numerous records: it became the highest-grossing R-rated film, the highest-grossing X-Men film, and the ninth-highest-grossing 2016 film." -> "It earned over $783 million against a $58 million budget, becoming the highest-grossing R-rated film, the highest-grossing X-Men film, and the ninth-highest-grossing 2016 film."
"Critics praised Reynolds' performance, the film's style and faithfulness to the comics"—it does clash with your point about the fourth wall.
Grammar's a bit hard here: "but some criticized the plot as formulaic as well as the sheer number of jokes in the film" -> "but some criticized what they saw as a formulaic plot and an over-reliance on jokes"?
Bin "also". "Deadpool received ...". Tony (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

Per Tony's comments, I'm going to archive this nom and ask that further work take place outside the FAC process. Notwithstanding the benefits of GAN, the leap from there to FAC is significant and, per instructions at the top of the FAC page, it's always advisable to seek formal community commentary at Peer Review before nominating here. As well as trying PR, you'd be eligible to give the FAC mentoring scheme a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.