Talk:James Bond (film series)/GA1

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


 * Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject James Bond, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/American cinema task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/British cinema task force,,, , , , , --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delisted as noted below.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am reviewing this article as part of GA Sweeps. This article is a very enjoyable read for those who may chance upon the article, but needs much work to bring it in line with the current standards of WP:WIAGA. I am about to outline a partial list of issues that need to be addressed.  After I post this listing, I will give concerned and interested editors a week before I reevaluate the article's quality rating.  I will be following along with the progress of the article and may make additional comments as it is appropriate.


 * Currently the alt text checker shows that all of the images in the article need WP:ALT text.
 * The two graphs and Barry Nelson continue to be without WP:ALT text.
 * Done.
 * The link checker shows two deadlinks and a suspicious link that need to be checked.
 * Only one deadlink has been resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * The dablink checker shows over twenty dablink issues.
 * There continues to be two redirect issues.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * One remains.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * James Bond film series? Doesn't count, I checked, isn't anywhere in the text. Must be because it's the main redirect to the page. igordebraga ≠ 00:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it counts. The page just got moved yesterday.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I.E., you should be checking this page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just the template, but if it's such a big deal, I fixed it! igordebraga ≠ 03:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it odd that the main body of the text starts with a chart rather than text.
 * Extensive sections of the article have no inline citations. Although the article has many inline citations, each paragraph should have at least one source if the article is properly formatted so that each paragraph contains a distinct idea.
 * The first two charts seem hard to read. Would the be any more legible at a larger size?
 * It seems to me that there is excessive use of fair use images and that almost none of them have adequate fair use rationales. Having all of the following in the article seems to violate the current WP:NFCC policy.
 * File:Bonds-6.jpg
 * File:AllBonds.png
 * File:BobSimmonsGunbarrel.png
 * File:BondTitleMontage.JPG
 * File:BondPersona.JPG
 * File:MoneyPennyMontage.JPG
 * File:M Briefing.JPG
 * File:QMontage2.JPG
 * File:BondGames.JPG
 * File:BondGirls.JPG
 * File:BondChase.JPG
 * File:Barry Nelson.jpg
 * File:BlofeldEvil.JPG
 * Removed four, think any other is unnecessary? (will do the refs later) igordebraga ≠ 04:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Which four?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * AllBonds (Bonds in Gunbarrel pose), Persona, Games, and Barry Nelson. igordebraga ≠ 00:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Contact an image person such as, , , , .--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I will monitor the progress toward addressing my concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am somewhat disappointed in the progress, but there has been notable progress. I will check back in a few days to see if there has been any further progres.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There has been significant progress in the last week, especially in regard to citations. Keep up the good work because many paragraphs remain entirely uncited. I will check back in a few days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delisted There has been no progress since my last check on the citations.  The fair use images remain overused. Now the table of contents is overly detailed.  Although, you might be able to convince me to allow 007 fair use images, I am fairly certain only about three or four at most would survive a serious image review.  I am not failing this for the images, but rather the lack of adequate inline citations.  I believe that for an easily sourced topic like this, if each paragraph is properly formulated to cover a distinct topic, then it should have at least one inline citation.  This article fails that simple test.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A lot of attention in this article is given to recurring motifs, most of which are fairly obvious to viewers of the films, and are hard to provide citations for. Possibly, this much attention to that issue isn't all that encyclopedic to begin with. While we may have too many images, the choice of deletion seems slightly arbitrary. No set of images seems more or less necessary to the article except for the image with all the Bonds. I would have definitely retained the Barry Nelson image. I note the section "Characters with only two Bond film appearances" has been deleted. That may make some sense as too trivial.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. Excellent work on the alt text.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Images
Well, I'm the miscreant who uploaded most of the images that are in montage form. I don't exactly know how this is best addressed in WP policy. When one is talking about a series (or director), the recurrence of certain motifs seems to be good to address pictorially. This is often done with books on directors like Hitchcock or Kubrick. Is there a way to improve the fair-use rationale of these? --WickerGuy (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert on fair use policy and know that in movie articles they are fairly common. I am just not sure what should be allowed.  You might want to actually see if you can find an expert on this subject or I could do so for you.  We will need to get someone else to come by and decide this issue for us.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no problems with the actual images. 201.17.85.216 (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)