Talk:Ant-Man (film)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Grabbing this for a review over the weekend. Miyagawa (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, here goes:


 * No dab links.
 * Images are fine. The two fair use images both have specific purposes; the movie poster and the special effects demonstration.
 * Lead: Would it be possible to add a few of the highlights or a general tone to demonstrate the critic's positive reviews?
 * "he reveals that Janet, known as the Wasp, disappeared into a subatomic quantum realm to disable a Soviet nuclear missile." - it's been a few months since I last saw Ant-Man, but if I recall properly she disappeared into the subatomic quantum realm while disabling the missile - it wasn't the disappearance that caused the missile to be disabled, which this currently reads as.
 * Is it worth mentioning Sam Wilson is the Falcon?
 * "He's a guy trying to create a new life for himself and find redemption." Needs a direct cite since it's a quote.
 * Likewise, "capable, strong, and kick-ass", needs a cite after the comma.
 * "infinitely more capable of actually being a superhero" needs a cite after the following comma.
 * "the next generation of Ant-Man's suit" same again
 * The cites after "An SFPD officer" can be moved to the following punctuation - and do you need three to cover that point?
 * Same issue with the cites after "Lang's former cellmate"
 * "not that much more" needs a cite after the comma
 * You don't need to link Edgar Wright in the quote box under development since he's linked in the text.
 * Spotted a couple more quotes that need direct cites - I'll stop listing them, but you'll need to go through and double check the article for them

Going to take a break there. Miyagawa (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this Miyagawa. I have gone through the article and made the changes you brought up, including moving up direct cites for all the quotes I could find. Let us know if you find anymore quotes that need citing, or if there is anything else we need to do. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to question slightly your asking to put cites after direct quotes. I am quite confident that all the quote material are sourced by the next proceeding ref, and this is not me trying to say I don't think quote material should be cited. To me, it looks incorrect to have the same refs used in multiple times a row and is unnecessarily excessive, when the one occurrence can cover all the material. I think readers are competent enough to know that material between ref tags should all be cited by the ending tag. If it's not, then we have an issue, but we don't in this case. I'll wait for your response to my questioning before I got back and revert those specific changes Adam made. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you still reviewing this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, completely missed both yours and Adam's edits here. According to WP:MINREF, direct quotations need to be cited. I understand where your coming from, but certainly from my experience across various levels of article, the interpretation that is commonly used is that the quotes should be cited at the next punctuation mark. Now that technically isn't a policy, and so the citation work here with quotes doesn't need to be completed for Good Article - so by all means stop doing them (and I'll stop checking for them). However, I'm certain that if you wanted to push forward and take this to FA then the same issue will get raised there as well. Miyagawa (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also forgot to say - sorry for the delay in completing the review, I'll aim to get this sorted over the weekend and then hopefully we can get this article signed off shortly afterwards. Certainly there's nothing major that'll stop this from being a GA, just the usual few niggles here and there that all nominated articles tend to have (mine included). Miyagawa (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your replies Miyagawa. I see what you are saying with WP:MINREF, but looking just below that is WP:CITEDENSE, and I believe that is what I was talking about. As such, I am going to undo the changes Adam did in adding the tags to the direct quotes, as long as the same ref is the only one that comes at the end of the sentence(s). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's finish off that review:


 * The image caption under cast; you don't need to link the actor's names there as they're already in the text.
 * Under Pre-production - the cite following "featuring the first appearance of Scott Lang" needs to be moved to the next punctuation mark.

I think that's it. There's a couple of lines that I wouldn't have worded that way, but they're not grammatically wrong so I'm not inclined to suggest that you change them. It's a very interesting article - I had no idea they used macro photography for the film, I had presumed that was all CGI. Anyway, once those last two points are tidied, ping me here and I'll come back and pass this for GA. Sorry again for the delay, I'd just presumed due to the size that it'd be a bigger review task than it ultimately was, but everyone who worked on this has done a very good job. Miyagawa (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅! Thanks for taking the time to review this article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, I'm happy that it meets the GA criteria (it was never far off anyway, and just needed a few tweaks). Promoting now. Miyagawa (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Appreciate you taking the time to review and pass it! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)