Talk:Deadpool (film)/GA2

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

Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 02:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Article assessment currently in preparation and may take a day or two. This article was nominated one year ago and was not passed because it was not stable. The current article appears to be stable. If you could indicate why the current article appears to be approaching 200Kb in size and if you believe this is justified as is, or, if you might be open to considering the possibility of developing and/or abridging some of the sections. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * By my check, the article is just over 60Kb of readable prose, which is alright but could be cut down a little bit if we really want to. Some of the music section could go to the separate soundtrack page which would help. The reason this article is a little bigger than usual is because of the large development and marketing sections. They are both sections that I don't usually see there being much info for, but in the case of Deadpool the long development and extensive marketing are both pretty major parts of the film and I am reluctant to cut them down and/or split them off. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Begin assessment of article by section titles. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Lead section
 * Lead section appears a little long in phrasing and content. In the first paragraph, is it really necessary to give a three adjective description of the lead character: "wisecracking, fourth wall-breaking antihero Deadpool." If the film is introduced as a superhero film by genre, can he be called something like "the superhero Deadpool". Both the second and third paragraph can be shortened for wording. For example, these two sentences seem optional to the lead section as already covered in the main body of the article: "The group wanted to faithfully adapt ... to an enthusiastic response." Same approach to trim the third paragraph of the lead section, and is that first sentence distinguishing the premiere date from the general release date four days later really needed in the lead section when its already covered in the main body of the article.
 * I have removed "wisecracking" and the film's premiere (I had the premiere in there just because that is what we usually do for film articles), but I am hesitant to remove the fouth wall-breaking, attempts at more faithful adaptation, and test footage leak. Those are all very significant aspects of the film, that are widely discussed throughout the body of the article, and that should be reflected in the lead per WP:LEAD. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Better wording might follow the Deadpool character description and state: "... antihero Deadpool with a tendency to break the fourth wall". Second paragraph in lead section can still be shortened. Deadpool 3 should be left out of the lead since if Deadpool 2 is not a hit, then there will likely be no sequel to it. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 1 Plot
 * Closing sentence referencing the sequel seems unneeded since the sequel has already started filming.
 * I'm not sure what you mean by this. The scene is still part of the film, even if the sequel has started filming. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The last sentence in the plot section should be dropped as not being part of the plot of the film but more related to the marketing of the film. Once the credits start to role, the optional inclusion of voice-overs for the credits, promotional materials, and gag-reels are normally excluded from the discussion of the film itself. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 2 Cast
 * Cast section seem to include extensive material about character development which normally would be covered in the development section or the writing section. Consider either starting a character development section or moving the material to the writing section under the production section. The extensive embellishments should be moved out of the cast section and significantly abridged.
 * This is the format used in all the GA film articles I have been involved in, and is based on guidelines at WP:FILMCAST. This information is specific to each of the characters rather than in scope of the overall production, so it seems better to have a short paragraph beside the character's name rather than information for lots of different characters sprinkled throughout the production section. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The narrative flow of these character descriptions still seems wordy even if you are set on keeping this format for the descriptions. Its understandable that you might be attached to all the nice references you found, though they should not interfere with the narrative flow of these descriptions. They seem a bit wordy even though well-cited. Try to shorten the wording in each of the descriptions. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've tried to cut down on these. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 3 Production
 * There is no casting section here. See comments for cast section above.
 * See above and my reply at the bottom. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Casting is normally seen as part of development in filmmaking and could, as an option, be added there as part of the development section as you already have done with your writing section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Since casting happened throughout the production of the film, even after they had finished filming, I don't really think that is an option here. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 3.1 Development
 * It might be useful to start a financing section here to separate the money numbers from the historical and technical sequence of events in the filmmaking. Wording in this entire section can be trimmed for word length. Writing section is useful here though it may be also trimmed for word length. Does this article really need discussion of Green Lantern when there is already a main article for that Reynolds film.
 * I don't know if there is really enough information for a whole subsection on the financing of the film, since we only mention it in a couple of lines. Likewise, Green Lantern is only mentioned briefly when it had an impact on this film's development, and in a single line of the writing section. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Your text in this section still seems to be on the long side for what is being stated. I will include an example below to try to demonstrate what I mean. You can express much of this material in fewer words. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 3.2 Pre-production
 * Length of wording is an issue here. The material is well-cited and referenced. It just seems to be very long for the coverage of the main points in this section.
 * See bottom. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See my example below to an example of length of wording. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 3.3 Filming
 * Not sure what the reference to "modern scenes" in the second paragraph here is referring to. Also, what is the discussion of Reynolds's improvs and off-the-cuff material doing in the closing paragraph of the filming section. Is it needed in this section?
 * That comes from the writing section, where the idea of the two timelines is introduced. And all the improv stuff is in the filming section because it happened during filming, and is a big part of the film's approach and tone. It is also referenced again later in the article, in the post-production section. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The phrase "more modern scenes" is used in the citation you give as a relative term in comparison to the "origin" scenes which were discussed by the writers. Your version of this phrase seems different from the article cited. This section can be made shorter without loss of content. For example, you state: "Reese and Wernick wrote a draft of the script every year between joining the project and completing the film, including a PG-13 version that was briefly considered by the studio." Could it be stated as: "The writers wrote several drafts of the script prior to finishing the film, including a PG-13 version for studio consideration," or your more concise version of something like that.  JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate what you mean here, and will attempt to be more concise throughout the article, but the example you have given here is just removing information, not re-writing the same information in a more concise way, and that is something I would rather avoid if I can. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 3.4 Post-production
 * Somewhat repetitive wording here: it was "revealed that" ... it was "revealed that". Wording throughout this section and its visualization section can be trimmed usefully. Separate editing section may be useful here to shorten some of these long sections and help reorganize the material between (a) post-production, (b) editing, and *c) visual effects.
 * I've cut down on the use of "revealed". I don't think the one paragraph on editing justifies having a separate editing sub-section though. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Narrative flow is still an issue here. The citations here are good, though it sometimes has the appearance of looking like a list of sentences, all cited, grouped together as paragraphs. You can shorten this material and still preserve its meaning. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 4 Music
 * There is a main article for this and there is no need for more than a single short paragraph here. If it did not directly influence the production of the film, then it should be taken to the soundtrack page.
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 5 Release
 * Adequate to section.


 * 5.1 Marketing
 * With so much detail, the reader learns little of why so much money and time were devoted to the marketing of the film. Marketing is often emphasized as part of the economics of filmmaking and not just public appearances and similar interactions. Wording in section can be abridged with emphasis on how much money was budgeted and why the marketing campaign was this extensive. It appears that the film did not sell itself, as would be expected of other films which might deal with famous historical events or be otherwise unique.
 * The section is intended to note that they had a smaller than usual marketing budget so tried to use the internet to their advantage, then go through some of the different things they did, with discussion at the end of the section about the unusual marketing and how it worked for the character, etc. Knowing that, is there anything specific in the section that you feel is unclear or could require further discussion? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Length of wording affects the narrative continuity of this section. It can be abridged without loss of meaning. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 5.2 Home media
 * Adequate to material covered.


 * 6 Reception
 * Adequate to material covered.


 * 6.1 Box office
 * Adequate to material covered.


 * 6.2 Critical response
 * Adequate to material covered.


 * 6.3 Accolades
 * There is already a main article for this and the material should be abridged and shortened. The top ten list is not very useful and can be moved to the main article for accolades for this film and removed from this article.
 * I've moved the top ten list to the accolades article, which just leaves a short summary of that separate article, and some discussion on the Oscars. The latter bit does not fit at the list of accolades article since the film did not actually get nominated for any Oscars, but I think it is worthwhile discussing it here due to the wide coverage the situation got. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 6.4 Industry impact
 * Impact and accolades are often discussed together, and a separate section on impact seems not entirely useful. The notable material here can be moved to some of the other sections as needed, and even moved to the accolades main article or even the development section of Deadpool 2. Writing an impact and accolades section seems unneeded when there is already a main article for accolades.
 * I don't really understand combining the impact and accolades sections, because a film's impact on the industry is not an accolade. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This section should be titled as 'cinematic impact'. The film had a good box office, it did not change Hollywood forever. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It didn't really have an impact on cinema in general, but it does appear to have some sort of impact on the way the industry discusses superhero films. I'll try to cut this down a bit anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 7 Sequels
 * There is no need to divide this material into 3 separate sections which should briefly state the related projects, which are independent of the current film discussed in this article. With filming already started on Deadpool 2, only the immediate sequel should be the point of emphasis in this section, briefly, since there is a main article for it.
 * This is the format used for all film articles that I have looked at. If you really think that this article should be doing something different to that, then I can look at changing the section, but I don't see why this one should be any different. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * All three sections should be combined into one brief section here. Also, if Deadpool 2 is not a hit, then its unlikely that it will have a sequel in a third installment. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll try this then, but we can't start speculating about what will happen in the future (see WP:CRYSTAL). We can only go off what we know, and at the moment we know that they are developing a third film. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 7.1 No Good Deed
 * No need for separate section, see above.


 * 7.2 Deadpool 2
 * No need for separate section, see above.


 * 7.3 Deadpool 3
 * No need for separate section, see above.

That should get things started. Ping my account for any clarifications. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to review this article, I really appreciate it. I have gone through and replied to your points above. One thing that you bring up quite a bit is the the length of my wording is an issue. I have worked hard to cut down unnecessary quoting and say things in shorter and shorter paragraphs as I developed this article, so if you think it isn't good enough could you please give more specific examples? Also note that I am following the general structure that is given at MOS:FILM, with Development, Pre-production, Filming, and Post-production sections. This means that a lot of information is given in chronological order, such as cast members being stated as they were revealed to us rather than in a single section together (we do already have that in the cast section though). I have only created sub-sections of those production sections where the content has truly justified it (writing and visual effects). - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That was a good start on your revisions. You are correct about the issue of narrative expression and narrative length as being a concern here. Since your citations and references are done so well, the improvements to the narrative in the article as a whole would make the citations more accessible if the narrative is more concisely and plainly presented. Possibly try this for one section, like the writing section, to see if you might adjust and trim the material to improve the narrative flow. The amount of effort you put into the citations and references is easy to recognize as done well. Ping my account when your updates are ready. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand what your concern is with the amount of words I am using, and have tried to go through the article and cut down on that. Let me know how I've done. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Your edits in the sections overnight are a useful move forward in enhancing the narrative flow in this article. Regarding your sticking to your section title of "Industry impact", my example was from Star Wars (film) which preferred "Cinematic influence". "Franchise impact" or "Franchise influence" might also be an option. The other option might be to merge this section with the section that comes right after it in this article and to present the sequels and sister projects together as relating to one another. The Marvel franchise impact and influence would then be in the context of the sequel having started production. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Its not really about the sequel though, its more about other Hollywood studios trying to copy Deadpool. And I think "Cinematic influence" is a bit of an exaggeration, as there is no big impact on cinema in general (yet). For now, the section just notes how some industry executives and studios have responded to the film's success, so I still think "Industry impact" is the most appropriate title. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * After reading that section again, the section title referring to the film 'industry' as a whole seems to not match the contents of that section which discusses only one genre of film, the superhero franchises, as commented on by interested parties at Sony, Fox, Warner Bros, and Marvel. More to the point seems to be that the "R"-rating of the film seems to be the recurrent topic of this section and its implications for the future of filmmaking in this genre alone. Possibly a title like "R"-rating impact might be closer to what is actually discussed in this section. 'Industry' is ambiguous and overly general here as a label. There is also a sentence on R-rating from this article's Marketing section which you could move to this section, and similar material from elsewhere in the article, to make your point about rating system implications for superhero films. The Marketing section is already somewhat long and the move of the ratings discussion from there to this section would unify the R-rating discussion in this article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be discussing the production and marketing of the film in a sub-section of "Reception". The film's rating and tone is a major element that came up in all aspects of its production, which is why it is mentioned throughout the article in places that it is relevant. It would be problematic to instead have a whole sub-section of "Reception" discussing a major part of the film that had not yet been mentioned anywhere in the article. The problem here seems to be that you are interpreting the title "Industry impact" as meaning "This film had a massive impact on the entire film industry, read this section for more!" But in actual fact, it just says that the film has had some sort of impact on the film industry, and if someone reads the section they will find the specifics there—that the film has inspired several members of the film industry to attempt to replicate its success. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You appear to be online at this time and it would be useful if you could provide me with one or two examples of any recent film that has an Industry impact section. I only need one or two examples. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * From a quick first look I have found a TV article, Adventure Time, that uses it in a similar way to here (a specific aspect from the project being replicated by others in the industry). I can have a better look for film examples later if you want. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * One or two examples from films would be good. Films that can be nominated for film awards just like Deadpool was nominated for film awards during the last film awards season. JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've had a look around and there seems to be a reasonably consistent use of "Cinematic influence" for this sort of thing, as you had mentioned with Star Wars earlier. I am coming around to that one as an alternative title. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good direction to take and adapting the section title to that would be useful. After you do that, it might be interesting to look at Motion Picture Association of America film rating system, in the section titled "effects of ratings" there, to see if something notable can be added to this influence section regarding effects of ratings. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added some stuff on how R-rated films were received before Deadpool to try and show the change in thinking that is being discussed. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Closing comments
It was nice of you to do that extra research last night about ratings and to add that useful discussion in the article. The article is now promoted. You might want to check the spelling in the lead section where you state, "Reynolds lead to a green light from Fox in 2014," where the verb tense might look better as "led to". As I stated above, the references and citations in the article look well constructed and should provide a good foundation if you decide to develop the article further towards an FA article. It might be interesting to see if the ratings debate comes up again for Deadpool 2 when it is time for it to be reviewed by MPAA. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks John, and thanks for sticking with me through all that re-writing and back-and-forth (also good catch with the 'lead/led', that is a mistake I make quite a bit). Just a note that for some reason the bot thinks you have failed this review, sending me a failure notice and not adding the GA icon to the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)