Wikipedia:Peer review/GoldenEye/archive2

GoldenEye

Previously reviewed. Currently, the article is listed as a Good Article and is {{A-Class}} for the Films WikiProject. Furthermore, it seems to be a good article and I would like to see if become featured. I'd like to know what can be done to make that happen. Thanks, Cbrown1023 23:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The gadgets and weapons sections come across as real fancrufty - what's their significance? LuciferMorgan 02:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As a third-party member who has not contributed at all to this article, I have deduced that it is there because they are a major part of the film (it is an action movie... the cars/gadgets/guns are important). Cbrown1023 02:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a Bond movie, all the articles have them. Wiki-newbie 15:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's one of the main things about Bond films - they rarely have any deeper meanings. I think it would be a mistake not to mention them at all. Trebor 19:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Text:

GoldenEye

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • it has been
  • allege
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR _t 22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)