Talk:Doctor Strange (2016 film)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 16:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria It may take two days for me to complete my initial review. I will note/pass items as I go along. You don't need to wait for me to finish to begin addressing them. Most of my comments are open for discussion, so feel free to question anything. Once complete, I will be claiming points for this review in the 2017 WikiCup. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Lead
 * No concerns
 * Plot
 * "who has taught all at Kamar-Taj" All is somewhat ambiguous here - on a first read I thought it meant she taught all topics. I think every student (or similar) would be more direct and clarify that Kamar-Taj is a place of learning.
 * ✅ - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "mysteriously walked again" The tense on walked makes it unclear that it was not a one-time occurrence. I suggest mysteriously regained the use of his legs or something similar.
 * ✅ - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Pangborn directs Strange to Kamar-Taj. There, Mordo, a sorcerer under the Ancient One, takes in Strange." These are two short sentences that read a little choppy. I suggest combining them as Pangborn directs Strange to Kamar-Taj, where he is taken in by the sorcerer Mordo, or similar.
 * ✅ - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "he secretly reads from the text Kaecilius stole pages from," suggest 'he secretly reads the text from which Kaecilius stole pages to avoid repetition of from and ending the phrase with a preposition.
 * ✅ - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "comparing him to Kaecilius, who wants eternal life." suggesting drawing a comparison to Kaecilius' desire for eternal life.
 * ✅ - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Kaecilius uses the stolen pages to summon the powerful Dormammu of the Dark Dimension, where time is non-existent. This destroys the London Sanctum, and sends Strange from Kamar-Taj to the New York Sanctum." Some crucial details are missing to make this understandable to someone who hasn't seen the movie. It needs to be rewritten to convey that Kaecilius hopes to achieve eternal life by stopping time and how/why the London Sanctum was destroyed. I only watched it once, but I believe the sanctum was destroyed to let Dormammu through, not because Dormammu was summoned. It's also unclear that the sanctums are connected through portals, and that Strange was accidentally sent to the NYC sanctum through such a portal.
 * Will think on this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me know what you think of the changes I made here to help this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It works for me. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "from the Dormammu's power" The Dormammu? Probably an artifact from when this once said the dark dimension?
 * ✅ - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "wounds the Ancient One, and escapes " comma not needed
 * ✅ - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "creates an infinite time loop inside...same moment forever." infinite and forever aren't needed - They're both redundant and wrong, since the loop does end.
 * I don't think these are necessarily wrong, given they are intended to be infinite and forever when Strange creates them. I'll see if I can make it any better though. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "stating that Earth has, " comma not needed
 * ✅ - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Cast
 * "Actor Wong was also pleased with the changes made to the character, and described him as "a drill sergeant to Kamar-Taj" rather than a manservant, who does not practice martial arts in the film, another racial stereotype." This second half of this line seems clumsy, but I have no alternate suggestion.
 * ✅. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Production
 * "Dimension, before" comma not needed
 * ✅ - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "the directors Marvel was considering were believed to be..." Believed by whom?
 * Believed by the report, from the given citation. Worded to avoid "X reported/reported by", which can be handled by the given source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you feel about "By March, IGN believed the directors were..."?
 * It wasn't just IGN.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But IGN gave the report in the given citation. They cite their report to the Hollywood Reporter. This is why I think the article should say who believed it or be rewritten to avoid a weasel word. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Right so just saying IGN is misleading, and they weren't the only ones to pick up THR's story. Honestly, I think the believed is understood and no cause for concern. Perphaps "by many" or "the media" but those are just as vague.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that "by many" or "by media" would not help. Since a different director list attributed to THR was given just two sentences before this one, what about "In March, The Hollywood Reporter" revised its list of directors under consideration to..."? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's just shifting from one publication to another. I thought the point was not to call out a single publication since several reported it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have an issue with naming the original source. My concern was the vague "believe", and (if I understood correctly) User:Favre1fan93's concern was repetitive wording. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * could we make it "By March, it was reported that Marvel was considering Andrews, Levine, and Scott Derrickson for directors."? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I absolutely loathe the phrase "it was reported/revealed". The report/reveal isn't what's notable. Everything on Wikipedia has been reported. It should be phrased to emphasize the important detail. I'm thinking we just lose the word believe and say "By March, Marvel was considering Andrews, Levine, and Scott Derrickson to direct the film".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Me too. I have made the change. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Music
 * No concerns here
 * Release
 * "It was screened at the EW PopFest on October 28, 2016..." This should be presented chronologically.
 * Moved. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There are lots of quotes about how the trailers and clips were received, but the tie-in comic is only mentioned as being released. Reviews for the issues are not included on Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-in comics either. I think a brief mention of their reception should be included. This aggregator would provide a quick overview of critical reviews without overtaking the paragraph.
 * As the only reputable review for both tie-in comics is from IGN for the first one, I don't think that is enough to include. If more reputable sites reviewed them, I'd be inclined to agree with your sentiment. But since many didn't, I think what we cover (release and contents) is sufficient. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Reception
 * No concerns.
 * Future
 * No concerns.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Taking a quick-but-not-exhaustive look around other MCU articles, the others have a "Sequel" section instead of a "Future" section. Based on the article prose I get the impression that while a sequel is very likely, it has not actually been confirmed. The Film MOS doesn't cover sequels - has this been discussed elsewhere? RocknRolla and The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day are two examples of film articles with a sequel section despite the lack of an actual sequel. Is there a good reason to use "Future", which carries a strong possibility of becoming dated, instead of just going with "Sequel"? I'm not worried about this particular article falling out of date, but there is the possibility that article could be used as a model when other editors create new film articles in the future.
 * For the MCU articles, we tend to use "Future" when nothing has been officially confirmed, and change it over to "Sequel" once it has. For the editors who work regularly on these articles, if I am to speak for them too, we feel it provides a quick distinction when looking over the article to know what has and has not been confirmed to be getting more films within a specific character franchise (ie Iron Man films, Captain America films, etc.). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That works for me. Thanks. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * Citations [45] and [229] are in all caps. No need to shout.
 * Fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * no concerns
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * No concerns
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig matches were attributed quotes and common phrases like "Visual effects supervisor Stephane Ceretti". No concerns.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * No concerns
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * No concerns
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * No concerns
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Frequent edits, but most are good ones and vandalism is quickly reverted.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * No concerns
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Infobox image has WP:ALTTEXT, other images have suitable captions.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Nice work User:Favre1fan93 and User:TriiipleThreat. I appreciate the quick responses to this review. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)