Wikipedia:Peer review/GoldenEye/archive1

GoldenEye

I would welcome comments on this page, which I'm hoping to get to FA-standard. Is the right weight given to sections? Does it get too listy near the bottom? Is it comprehensive? Is it sufficiently sourced? Plus any general comments on prose, style, etc. would be really useful. Thanks. Trebor 16:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work so far on this, the second best Bond. My suggestion is to expand the Cast and Production sections, as well as some better pictures. Wiki-newbie 16:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Behind Goldfinger? What kind of pictures were you thinking of? Trebor 18:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon the 'Release and critical response' section needs a little expansion. Compare its performance to other films released at the same time, perhaps. In terms of critical response, you could expand upon each point you make, to flesh it out, thus improving prosaic flow. If you look at Blade Runner, there's also a table outlining age ratings around the world - that's an option for you. If applicable, a 'References in modern culture' section would go down well. I understand this is not a particularly psychologically deep film, but surely there are multiple interpretations to be made. Another issue is - did it not win a single award? Was it not nominated for any? Seegoon 18:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, some excellent points made which I will start working on. Trebor 18:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the awards and tried to expand the critical response section. I'm not sure what to do with interpretations or themes (as most other film FAs have) - it's a typical Bond film so there's not any deep meaning hidden in there.Trebor 16:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

balloonman

This is a pretty good article although I would work on section where you recap the story line. It felt too condensed and didn't flow that well in some sections... overall though, this is a solid article.Balloonman 05:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was trying to keep it as concise as possible. I've made a couple of tweaks to try to improve it, but I'm not great at rewriting my own work. Trebor 16:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 19:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, I mean behind Goldfinger. Anyway, I'd prefer something other than Xenia strangling Bond. You know, like the Tank chase, that bungee jump and the satellite dish. Likewise, I recommend using the DVD more as a reference. Wiki-newbie 20:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't have the DVD. If anyone else does, it'd be great if you could add stuff. Trebor 23:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far so good. A couple of sections are list heavy: reliance on bullet points. I'd like to see these converted into prose wherever possible. The JPS ^{talk to me} 13:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. It's standard for the Cast section to use bullet points, and there's no other neat way to do gadgets and firearms (in my opinion). Censorship still isn't great, I'm trying to work out what to do with that. Trebor 16:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]