Talk:No Time to Die/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Vacant0 (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 20:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check this one. --Vacant0 (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PookiWooki: I'll put this on hold until these issues get fixed. For the most part, the article is well-done, although the issues that I've pointed down below will have to be fixed before being promoted to GA. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article. I've fixed the issues that you listed in General, Images, and a few in Sources. Could you clarify what you mean by that first issue about Elliot Graham and Tom Cross? Is it inappropriate to link to their Wikipedia pages in the infobox? PookiWooki (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Graham and Tom Cross are only present in the infobox, they are not mentioned in the text. It should be stated in the text that "Elliot Graham and Tom Cross worked as editors" or something like that. I don't want them removed from the infobox, there just needs to be a piece of text that actually confirms that they worked as editors for the movie.

Daily Express sources are still present in the article, this needs to be removed. Vacant0 (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two tags besides the Daily Express sources, you should find different but also reliable sources that back up those claims. Vacant0 (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Graham and Tom Cross are only present in the infobox, they are not mentioned in the text. It should be stated in the text that "Elliot Graham and Tom Cross worked as editors" or something like that. I don't want them removed from the infobox, there just needs to be a piece of text that actually confirms that they worked as editors for the movie. Daily Express sources have been removed, I'll pass the article once this gets done. Vacant0 (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vacant0: Film infoboxes with credits from the billing block of the original theatrical poster should suffice, similar to starring credits. See guidance regarding film templates here. If you know how to upload images with the correct description that would be helpful. Poster example here. If not, I will request the original image uploader to change the poster. --GloMonster^Talk 18:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to it, although I'd recommend to ask the uploader about his opinion on the poster. Although looking at now, I think that it would be better to keep the current one. All other Bond movies also use posters of the current shape. Vacant0 (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. The current one you're referring to is called a quad. Previous Bond quad posters had billing blocks; this one doesn't. I'll put in the request and seek the uploader's views.--GloMonster^Talk 21:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the final No Time to Die quad poster was not issued with a billing block, however the billing block was included in the film's quad poster released prior to the film's delay. The poster as seen on the article should suffice as a representation of the film. Daboyle250 (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on the length of the cast list section... This type of lengthier approach is reasonable if roughly the same amount of info exists fir each primary, like with Inception. If there was a severe discrepancy then moving detaiks to the casting section makes sense. Masem (t) 02:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also spot checking back, both The World is not Enough and Quantum of Solace have expanded cast sections that follow the same guidance.

Also simoly deleting the information that is sourced is not good. Uf you are going to trim diwn that information needs to be relocated (outside stuff that has poor sourcing) Masem (t) 03:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am promoting this article to GA considering that these issues had been fixed, the article now meets the GA criteria. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

General

Infobox: remove the "narrator" parameter since it's unused
Cast: "Lynch has said that she hopes her character brings a new layer..." → "Lynch hoped that her character would bring a new layer..."
Box office: one {{specify}} tag is present.
I'd recommend shrinking the Cast section.
Rest of the prose seems to be well-written.

Images

Add alt texts.
I'd recommend switching the image for Kalsoy to either this one or this one. These ones are far better looking and newer in comparison with the one that is present in the article. These ones are also properly tagged.
Rest of the images are alright.

Sources

Besides the infobox, Elliot Graham nor Tom Cross seem to be present in the text.
I've checked around 50 refs to verify the content. Refs 169 and 170 do not verify the first sentence in the "Theatrical release and postponements" section.
Sentences with excessive citations are present. In one case, four sources from one website are used to source one block of paragraphs.
Ref 11, 16, 17 should be removed, they redirect to YouTube.
Ref 145 should be removed, it redirects to Instagram.
Daily Express sources should be removed.
Ref 77, 178 redirect to a dead URL.
Archive rest of the sources.
Copyvio detector detects 41.2% possible violation regarding two Daily Express sources, which have to be removed.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.