Jump to content

Talk:Spider-Man 2/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GA nomination successful following sufficient improvements

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.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 22:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review! Expect initial comments within a week. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kicking this off by assessing the infobox, lead, and plot.

Infobox

[edit]
 Done Chompy Ace 03:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:INFOBOXREF, you don't need references here for content already cited within article prose
  • I have removed references for production companies, keeping the ones for the film's budget and box office performance.
 Done Chompy Ace 03:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Laura Ziskin Productions" redirects to Laura Ziskin and she previously has been linked in infobox, so you may as well unlink the productions as having two items linking to the same target feels redundant
 Done Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?
Where is this cited in the article? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was in the infobox... but your comment was added after I removed it...

Lead

[edit]
  • Starting three consecutive sentences with "It" feels monotonous (even when used as a possessive "Its")
  • Changed to sound less repetitive.
 Done Chompy Ace 03:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure MCU details are relevant enough to include in this section. Seems better for Spider-Man in film.
  • Could you elaborate on which details you want removed?
  • You should scrap "Dunst and Molina are set to reprise their roles as Mary Jane Watson and Doctor Octopus in the upcoming Marvel Cinematic Universe third Spider-Man film, while Maguire is currently in negotiations to appear as well. The film is slated to be released in 2021." entirely
 Done Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?

Plot

[edit]
  • Replace the dash in "which goes critical –" with a comma
 Done Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?
  • "killing his wife"..... let's mention Rosalie (aka Rosie) by name. I think it's worth doing so when she was part of the meal where Otto and Peter first bond, plus wanting to avenge her death plays a part in how our man with robotic arms wants to stop Spider-Man (wrongfully thinking Web-head killed his wife).
 Done Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?
  • "attempts to reconcile with Mary Jane, but with little success" → "unsuccessfully attempts to reconcile with Mary Jane"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?
  • "New York City crime" seems like it's missing a possessive "'s" after "City"
  • Added the possessive "'s".
 Done Chompy Ace 03:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to come later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

[edit]
  • All roles should be cited, Some Dude From North Carolina, and most are missing references. You'd especially need those for things like "Peyton List and her brother Spencer List make their film debuts playing a little girl and boy playing on steps respectively" and "a fellow university student of Peter's, who is identified as Gwen Stacy in the film's novelization". WP:FILMCAST doesn't provide any exemptions in that regard. If you don't feel like using individual citations for each person, then I'd be fine with a general "Credits adapted from ______" note and implementing the source there containing as many roles as possible. See Home Alone and Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge for good examples of what I mean.
 Done Added a "Credits adapted from ______" source.
 Done Sentence has been removed.
  • This doesn't mention Robert De Niro or Sam Neill
 Done removed Chompy Ace 12:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done reworded sentence above Chompy Ace 12:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't italicize "Osborn family".
 Done Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?

The rest will most likely be done section-by-section. As for the "Laura Ziskin Productions" listing in infobox, you can simply restore the ref used there unless you plan to implement one for that within the prose instead. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun some of these suggestions, but I will have to complete the rest later in the day. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?
@SNUGGUMS: All of these suggestions have now been completed thanks to Chompy Ace. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 13:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While it is looking better now, I should mention before continuing onto other parts of the page that (for the sake of consistent formatting in the section) I would prefer all cast members to be presented in a list form with their accompanying descriptions instead of having a mixture of paragraphs and bullet points. I also am not convinced Heavy.com is among the best sources to use. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done All of the cast has been changed into "bullet-point"-form, and the Heavy.com reference has been swapped. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 21:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Some Dude From North Carolina and SNUGGUMS: But the edit was reverted by Facu-el Millo as the reason says: "Unnecessary. There's not enough information for these characters to have their own bullet, and the other way is the common practice". Swapped reference after the revert. Chompy Ace 22:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are many examples of this common practice in GA-status articles of the same topic. See Spider-Man, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, and every GA MCU film article from Iron Man to Spider-Man: Far From Home. El Millo (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Facu-el Millo shouldn't have restored that style unless someone is willing to add individual citations for each role (or perhaps some collective ones for paragraph listings that mention multiple credits). In any case, the novelization bit for Gwen Stacy allegedly being featured still isn't supported by the general ref (it only lists Brianna Brown as a train passenger), and "will begin his physical training" should be in past tense (e.g. "underwent physical training") for Molina's Doc sock preparation. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the bullet format doesn't make all those cast members any less in need of a reference than they were as a paragraph. They need a source either way. El Millo (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done in a proper way Chompy Ace 02:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Production

[edit]

Development

[edit]
 Done, removed Chompy Ace 04:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, removed mentions from above Chompy Ace 04:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless I'm missing something, the attributed link for "Producer Avi Arad rejected the love triangle angle on Ock, and found Harry putting a price on Spider-Man's head unsubtle" doesn't support that statement. What we can safely do based on what was used for discussing such elements is that they got scrapped after a rewrite from Gough and Millar.
 Done, removed Chompy Ace 04:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see discussion of Superman II, but that doesn't include giving up superhero duties, and there actually is a part where Sam Raimi specifically says "As much as I love the Superman films, they weren't really the source material.", contrary to what the current prose asserts.
 Done, removed Chompy Ace 04:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Filming" subsection will come next. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Filming

[edit]
 Done Chompy Ace 08:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Fixed the date. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?
  • "shooting on ten major sets created by production designer Neil Spisak" isn't supported by the attributed ref. Either get rid of that part or add an additional citation for it.
 Done Added reference + fixed the sentence. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?
  • Only "an anonymous sender" is used as a basis for the claim that shoots went on beyond Christmas 2003. The lack of transparency makes me suspicious that it could be a cover for somebody pulling things out of nowhere.
 Done Swapped reference. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?
  • When did filming conclude? The section is incomplete without such detail. Something I forgot to mention earlier is that it should also be included in the lead.
 Done Added when filming concluded to the lead. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?
Looking better, now just change "till" to "until"
 Done Chompy Ace 08:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once I get through "Visual effects", the "Production" section will be complete :). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Visual effects

[edit]
  • For a slightly less repetitive use of "the" in this subsection's first paragraph, maybe change "The colors" into "Its colors" or "The helmet Maguire wore" into "A helment Maguire wore"
 Done Chompy Ace 09:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can only guess "practical" in regards to the tentacles is another way of saying the real ones (or whatever wasn't digitally created). Maybe you could say that instead when "practical" somehow doesn't feel like the best word choice here.
 Done word changed to "real" Chompy Ace 09:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to do here before I get into "Release". Improving it should be easy. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Release

[edit]

Home Media

[edit]
 Done removed the mention of VHS Chompy Ace 00:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spider-Man 2.1 (2007)
[edit]
  • Only April 17, 2007 seems to be given for a release date, and just the DVD at that
 Done Don't think the cut was released on Blu-ray, and couldn't find any sources saying it was. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?
  • Unless I'm missing something, this doesn't give any counts for how many alternate/extended scenes are featured in the 2.1 edition
 Done Removed unsourced claims. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?

It'll take longer to get through "Reception", but here's something to work on in the meantime. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

[edit]

Box office

[edit]
  • Contrary to what placing this subsection here suggests, how much a movie grossed is a completely separate matter from what critics thought of it, so I would recommend moving detials on earnings into "Release" because it talks about how much money was made after film distribution.
  •  Not done per WP:FILMBOXOFFICE ("This information can be included under the reception section, or if sufficient coverage exists, it is recommended that this information is placed in a "Box office" or "Theatrical run" section") and per consistency with other articles. The box office gross of a film indicates its reception with viewers, and how many people saw it in theaters. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 01:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • $415.4 million internationally? That's a stretch even when rounding it from $415,032,492. If trying to keep things to the nearest hundred-thousands, then just say $415 million, and I'd go with $788.6 million for worldwide totals instead of $789 million.
  • Don't use IMDb as a citation when it's full of user-generated content and not trustworthy, especially not for any contentious claims like opening day records. Thankfully I found a Box Office Mojo link that can be used and already is implemented for the Lord of the Rings bit while a piece pertaining to Revenge of the Sith is a viable substitute for the June 30, 2004 opening in America.
  • This doesn't talk about Men in Black II at all.
  • I can't find any mention here of Shrek 2, so remove that title and simply stick with "2004's second-highest-grossing film". It also says 29th highest grossing film in North America overall instead of 28th.

Critical response

[edit]
  • Only having reviews from 8 publications (I'm counting both Ebert postings as one critic/organization) seems inadequate for a famous and highly acclaimed movie, especially one considered to be among the best film sequels ever made. One way to flesh it out is by moving the praise from "Legacy" to here (where it belongs).
 Done Chompy Ace 09:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's elaborate on what Empire said
 Done Chompy Ace 09:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Chompy Ace 09:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done removed SM1 2/4 stars sentence Chompy Ace 09:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't italicize "15 Sequels That Are Way Better Than The Originals"
 Done Chompy Ace 09:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure Salon.com is a good source to use. Either way, the previous reviews all come from more credible publications.
 Done, removed Chompy Ace 09:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades

[edit]
  • This is for the 2003 Saturn Awards, not its 2005 ceremony
 Done per Special:Diff/997191046 Chompy Ace 11:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not working, and its given archive doesn't list the movie at all
 Done, as WP:CITEBUNDLE per Special:Diff/997323635 Chompy Ace 23:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done added Chompy Ace 11:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done fixed Chompy Ace 11:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of the DVD nominations you've listed for the Satellite Awards are included in this
 Done, removed Chompy Ace 10:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you in advance that "legacy" can be scrapped after moving its praise since the meme isn't enough to stand as its own section, and the MCU details aren't relevant here, so get rid of those once the content worth preserving is rearranged. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Before I get into the "Video game" section and references: Saturn Awards archive isn't working properly (might have to get a new link altogether), and my point on MTV Movie Award nominations (which you seem to have missed) is that the article should provide something that gives the results of who won, even if it means having separate citations for that and one where the nominees are announced. Removing Empire isn't what I meant at all. On another note, put "15 Sequels That Are Way Better Than The Originals" in quotation marks, and I'm not sure how reliable "Screen Crush" is. The "Despite the many comic book superhero movies which have followed it" part is needlessly wordy and gives a false impression that a large number of films in a similar genre coming out afterwards has anything to do with how much people liked this one. Just go with "Spider-Man 2 has frequently been listed among rankings of the best superhero movies". Buzzfeed has tons of user-generated content and therefore is inadvisable to include. You should specify that "Raimi's best superhero movie still takes the cake" refers to how Yahoo! finds this superior to The Amazing Spider-Man 2. I also still can't access the link for American Film Institute Awards or its archive, and the BAFTAs only list Harry Potter for "Orange Film of the Year". As for having Box Office in this section, "can be included" isn't the same thing as "should be included". Why other articles have such placements is beyond me. Also, that's not something you can get a definitive count for when it comes to how many people saw a movie in theaters when people sometimes attend multiple screenings. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Video game

[edit]
  • The first paragraph is entirely uncited. You mainly need references for release date, system distribution, and publisher details. Another ref is needed for critics' opinions on the game. The one attributed to sales can also be used for consoles.
  • With just two brief paragraphs total, you may as well merge them into one

References

[edit]
  • Ref#15 is missing its publication name (TV Guide), title, date, and author
  • I'm not sure "Ranker" should be italicized in ref#32
  • This talks more about Peyton List's involvement. We'll need another ref for Spencer List.
  • "E! Online" should read as E! without italics
  • "TODAY.com" should be Today
  • Ref#57, Ref#58, and Ref#60 are also missing publication names (each are from Amazon), and the first of these needs a title
  • You also neglected to add Box Office Mojo (which one shouldn't italicize) as a publication name for Ref#64 and Ref#66 as well as their authors (both are written by Brandon Gray)

Overall

[edit]
  • Prose: Nearly there
  • References: Some formatting needs to be altered, and not everything is properly attributed yet (namely Spencer List, video game details, and the results of MTV Movie Awards; merely giving a list of nominations isn't enough when that doesn't tell you who won)
  • Coverage: Looks good
  • Neutrality: I can't find any bias
  • Stability: Nothing of concern
  • Media: All images are appropriately licensed
  • Verdict: Putting the nomination on hold. If my remaining concerns are addressed in seven days or less, then I'll happily pass it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: Most, if not all of your suggestions have been fixed, corrected, and/or completed. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 22:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This now is ready to be promoted. Congrats on getting it up to par, and Happy New Year! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 06:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spider-Man_2/GA2&oldid=1163437863"