Talk:Jack the Giant Slayer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Incubator for Jack the Giant Killer (2012 film)[edit]

This is just a notice that an article for Jack the Giant Killer (2012 film) is being incubated at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Jack the Giant Killer (2012 film) until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jack the Giant Slayer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

On first pass, this looks like excellent work. It's well written, well sourced, and appears to cover major aspects of the topic (plot, production, reception, box office, etc.). I made some minor changes as I went.[1] Feel free to revert any you find objectionable. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Two quibbles I couldn't immediately fix myself:

  • " allows them to eat Isabelle and Elmont" -- this makes it sound like it happens, which I assume it doesn't (I haven't seen this film)--how about "gives them permission to eat..."?
  • "The film holds a" -- you should add an "As of --- 2013," onto this--not that the critical consensus is likely to dramatically change any time soon. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. See clarity question above. Spotchecks show serious copyright concerns.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. See minor point above re: WP:REALTIME (a number that could go out of date).
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.
  • Spotchecks are showing some copyright concerns here. I imagine it's not your fault--I know an article like this draws a ton of editors and is hard to police--but it looks like some plagiarized material snuck into the article early on, and thorough checks may be needed. These are small borrowings but we still can't use these sources' language almost word-for-word.

"Stanley Tucci as Lord Roderick, an adviser to the king with designs on usurping power" seems to be almost an exact quotation of source [2] without quotation marks. " Elmont, the leader of the king’s elite guard, who helps fight giants" also appears to be cut-paste from source.[3] " Aaron Johnson, Nicholas Hoult, and Aneurin Barnard were up for the young farmer role, and Adelaide Kane, Lily Collins, and Juno Temple were testing for the part of the princess" --almost exact quotation from [4]

  • " The Hollywood Reporter reported that Stanley Tucci had been cast as the villain, an adviser to the king with designs on usurping power, and Bill Nighy and John Kassir would play Fallon, the giants' two-headed leader; Nighy would play the big head and Kassir the small head" -- repeats almost exact quotation from [5]

I have to run out for a bit with the Mrs. and Little Miss, but a deeper look will be needed here to make sure the problem is limited to this early production stuff. We'll need to do some clean-up either way. Thanks again for your work on all this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Okay, I have made all the changes as suggested (see difference), please let me know if there are any more.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your fast response. I did five more randomly selected spotchecks, and out of those, one came back bad, with phrases and sentences cut-pasted from the source: [6] "Puzzlewood, which features unusual tree and rock formations ... The same forest is said to have inspired J. R. R. Tolkien to write The Hobbit." It looks like you were responsible for this one, unfortunately.[7]
It appears to me that this article is going to need every sentence checked against the sources for plagiarism and close paraphrasing. While the sourcing is clear, it still raises serious copyright issues to use identical or nearly identical language to a source without quotation marks. Would you be willing to do a check like the one I'm describing? I'll then doublecheck your work. Normally an article would be failed in this situation, but it seems more sensible for you and me to simply collaborate to clean up the issue. The article is GA-caliber in other respects. Let me know what you think, and thanks again for your work. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Will do, though it might take me a few days. I'll let you know when its done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Since it's now been about a week without further action, I'm closing this review. This seems close to GA in almost all respects, but will need a thorough check for other small copyvios like the ones noted above. I hope that happens in the future so that this can be passed--your work on it is much appreciated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe there is a cameo appearance of Ben Affleck as a "gunner". If somebody has got the DVD/Blu Ray of this movie, at 1h35m24s I think, I saw him. I don't know, if this is the right section to post such information, but I didn't want to mess with the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Plot Question[edit]

What was the meaning of the gap-toothed boy staring at the crown in the final modern-day scene? My wife thinks he has something to do with one of the giants, Fum I think, but I don't see the point. And please phrase your answer in the form of don't make me feel too stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It was "Roddy" a reincarnation of Roderick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)