Talk:Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film)/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MatthewHoobin (talk · contribs) 20:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Here I'll be reviewing the article Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film).
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate. I give my props to the uploaders/contributors of the images in this article; they complement the text rather nicely.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Putting this on hold until issues below have been addressed.
- Pass/Fail:
- Comments
- Citations needed: Three citations are needed in the article, required for these sentences which can be found within the article:
- In the Filming section: Principal photography ended on 28 January 2016.
- Was not able to find a source to support this so it has been removed from the article. Rusted AutoParts 18:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- In the Marketing section: A quick-to-sell-out signing took place shortly thereafter. and
Due to demand, the fan event was expanded to a number of other US and international locations.- Couldn't find sources to support those sentences so removed. Worked out anyway as it aided in trimming the Marketing bloat. Rusted AutoParts 18:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- In the Filming section: Principal photography ended on 28 January 2016.
- Excessive detail: The Marketing section seems to be excessively detailed. There's mention of different specific poster design releases, and the last paragraph in the section is a bit lengthy. Additionally, the Box office section is excessively detailed. Both the Marketing and Box office sections should be shortened to some degree.
–Matthew - (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- @MatthewHoobin: I'll begin working at these issues tomorrow. Apologies for the late response. Rusted AutoParts 01:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- Trimmed marketing. Rusted AutoParts 18:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- @TropicAces: has trimmed the BO section a bit. I wasn't sure which bits should and shouldn't be removed so I conferred with them as I've seen them edit those sections before. @MatthewHoobin: would Tropic's trimming be enough? Rusted AutoParts 14:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- @RustedAutoParts: I'd say that some of the box office information in the Other markets section that doesn't involve box office records should be removed. For example, the part about the film having the largest opening for a Harry Potter film in South Korea is notable, but including South Korea's opening was worth $14.2 million from 1.94 million admissions between Wednesday and Sunday and accounted for 68% of the total weekend box office doesn't seem necessary to me. There also seems to be, unless I'm mistaken, some conflicting info now that I look closer at it. For instance, the film is said to have opened in Australia at $1.6 million, and then, in the same paragraph, at $7.4 million. Sorry for not catching that in my initial review. This section seems to be the most troublesome in the article. Other than that, there's a bit of an excessive succession of citations in the United States and Canada, right after the sentence ... of which 388 were IMAX screens, and over 3,600 were showing the film in 3D. This can be fixed by removing a few of those citations or grouping the sources and adding a Notes section above the References section in the article. –Matthew - (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- The South Korea opening has been removed. The sources for the 3D screens trimmed down to 3 sources and the Australia BO opening was edited to reflect accurately what the source used stated. Rusted AutoParts 18:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- @RustedAutoParts: Sold! To GA status it shall go. Good work! –Matthew - (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. Rusted AutoParts 20:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- @RustedAutoParts: Sold! To GA status it shall go. Good work! –Matthew - (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- The South Korea opening has been removed. The sources for the 3D screens trimmed down to 3 sources and the Australia BO opening was edited to reflect accurately what the source used stated. Rusted AutoParts 18:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- @RustedAutoParts: I'd say that some of the box office information in the Other markets section that doesn't involve box office records should be removed. For example, the part about the film having the largest opening for a Harry Potter film in South Korea is notable, but including South Korea's opening was worth $14.2 million from 1.94 million admissions between Wednesday and Sunday and accounted for 68% of the total weekend box office doesn't seem necessary to me. There also seems to be, unless I'm mistaken, some conflicting info now that I look closer at it. For instance, the film is said to have opened in Australia at $1.6 million, and then, in the same paragraph, at $7.4 million. Sorry for not catching that in my initial review. This section seems to be the most troublesome in the article. Other than that, there's a bit of an excessive succession of citations in the United States and Canada, right after the sentence ... of which 388 were IMAX screens, and over 3,600 were showing the film in 3D. This can be fixed by removing a few of those citations or grouping the sources and adding a Notes section above the References section in the article. –Matthew - (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)