Talk:The Hunger Games (film)/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 16:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can expect a review over the course of the weekend at the latest. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One first thing before I go deeper into it: There are a number of dead links, as can be seen here. You should try to address those. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator does not seem to active here, which is unfortunate. I will still finish the review, and if just for future reference, since this is an article that for most parts qualifies as a GA easily.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Overall, this is very much a comprehensive article concerning a major blockbuster picture. As to be expected from an article of this scope, it does have issues however:

Lead: I feel that the lead is too long at parts. What I would suggest cutting is the sentence concerning Seneca Crane in the second paragraph. You deal with that later in the article and it is too specific to go into the lead. I would also cut down the information re the box office success. Everything with actual numbers should be elaborated in the article (which it is), it suffices to give abstract information in the lead (first place, third-highest grossing etc). Also, in the last paragraph there is a direct quote. While that is not prohibited under WP:LEADCITE, I feel it is a little off at this point, going into to much detail. You should also try to incorporate the sentence about the sequel into one of the paragraphs, to get the lead down to the desired four paragraphs.
Plot: This is my biggest issue with the article. The plot synopsis has multiple issues. You need to introduce the scenario more in the opening paragraph. Both president Snow and Seneca Crane should be mentioned before you go into the description of the Games themselves. Crane appears in the synopsis now without the reader knowing who he is supposed to be. You could also mention what Careers are earlier. I would refrain from using the names of the non-major characters such as Marvel and Glimmer, since the reader does not know who they are. It's enough to write killing one and driving the others away. Also, it is not really clear from the synopsis why Peeta joins the Careers at first when he is supposed to be in love with Katniss (now that I think of it, it is also not too clear in the movie itself, but well...). You should mention that he never had the intention of killing Katniss. The parentheses at the end of paragraph 5 are also not too stylistic. If you follow my advice of setting the scene better at the beginning of the synopsis, I believe that this insertion is no longer necessary.
Cast: Why aren't all cast members sourced?
Images of Lawrence and Hutcherson: You should state in the caption where the photos were taken. (If I remember correctly, Lawrence wore that stunning red dress to the Oscars?)
Most of the rest of the article is really good and informative and even meets FA criteria for the most part, imo.
Music/Soundtrack: Here, I moved a sentence around a bit. I also added a citation needed markup here.
Critical reception: Why are the infos concerning Fandango in the critical reception section?
Home media: Another citation needed markup there.

That's as much as I could find. Leaves the dead links that should also be taken care of as good as possible.

I give the nominator seven days to address the issues at hand. So far, still congratulations to an overall very good article! Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the synopsis several times after people have expanded it well beyond the 700 word recommended limit, and I disagree with most of your views as to its shortcomings. IMO, the setting is laid out just right. What do you think is missing? (Note it's at or just above 700 words now.) As for Snow being mentioned sooner, why? He doesn't play a significant part until the point where he is introduced. I've added Crane's title. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I made quite clear what I think can be improved. IMO, President Snow is a character so central to the story and its universe that he should not only be referenced in one half-sentence. It leaves the reader without knowledge over his significance. The part about Crane is certainly more understandable now that his position is mentioned. I would like to re-inforce what I wrote about mentioning names without context: A sentence like Clove attacks and pins her down; she then boasts about her part in Rue's death. leaves the uninformed reader wondering Who is Clove, why is that name coming up now? I would leave the names out of it if the characters are not further described. In that sense, Thresh and Foxface are fine, since who they are can be taken from the context. Cato is different matter. He is not introduced, but he is quite important, so a small sentence about who he is and where he comes from should be added. Also, while tracker jackers are wikilinked, they should be better explained. It is Wikipedia's policy not to write articles in such a way that it makes the reader click on a wikilink to understand something. I would therefore recommend writing it more openly as well, i.e. to a nest of poisonous, genetically altered wasps. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow may be central to the Hunger Games universe, but he isn't to this film. And I reiterate, this is already at the recommended maximum length. Expansion is discouraged (and IMO unnecessary). Maybe I'll get around to the names issue if I have some spare time. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected a couple of the dead links in the article. Don't have time to correct the others today. I'll try to get to them soon. Thanks for the review. HollywoodCowboy (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seven days have passed and I don't see major improvements to the points mentioned above. Furthermore, there seems to be continuing resistance to make necessary changes to the plot summary. I will be lenient, since I feel the article at most points even exceeds GA standards, and give the nominators until Sunday to address the issues at hand. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid, since nothing has happened, I will need to fail this a second time, which is a shame, because this is a very good article for most parts. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]