Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 04:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll take this for a review, a quick skim makes me think that there may be a bit of work before I can pass it. I'll try get to the review soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so there is definitely some work to be done here. The first thing that I would recommend you do is request someone from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors to give the article a full copy edit. Particular issues there include an overuse of dates in the production section, repeated information in places, and some quotes throughout the article that could easily be paraphrased and cut-down. Once a full copy edit has taken place, I can be more specific about issues to do with the writing of the article that I think need to be dealt with. While the article is on hold, you should also make sure all references are filled out, and it is especially important that they each have archives. Let me know when you are ready for me to have another look over this, though be warned that if it takes too long for you to respond to these issues then it will be likely that the review will be failed. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * A Guild copyeditor and myself have cleaned much of the article, think it needs more work before continuing your review? igordebraga ≠ 21:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I am finding this one to be a struggle. It just isn't up to the standard I would expect from a Good Article. I'll give you some specific points to deal with, and you can keep working on the general writing as you go through my problems, but I can't promise that taking care of this list will get the article to where it needs to be.
 * Lead
 * The alternate title was not used everywhere outside of the US, so I find the opening parenthetical misleading.
 * The lead is not the place to list all of the characters in the film (if any were to be noted at all, it should probably just be Jack Sparrow). You should also base the cast listing on the poster (as a neutral decider of who is important), and keep this list consistent for the infobox and cast list.
 * There should not be references in the lead. If it isn't already sourced in the body, then it shouldn't really be in the lead to begin with.
 * We don't need to list the formats of release here.
 * The whole line about release 10 years after the third film is irrelevant trivia.
 * Plot
 * The summary is too long, it needs to be less than 700 words per MOS:FILM.
 * Cast and characters
 * I would prefer that this section be just a 'Cast' section, as there isn't really a need for too much character detail in this section which should otherwise be simply plot information. Try to cut down each paragraph accordingly, and focus on the real world details.
 * For better readability of the actual list, I would suggest use of Cast list break.
 * Again, make sure the cast list is according to the poster.
 * Carina is never said to be formally called Barbosa, just that he is her father, so "(née Barbossa)" should be removed.
 * I think the images are putting too much weight on characters who aren't actually the main characters of the film. I think just having Depp and Rush as main returning actors would be fine, or just having Bloom and Knightley as special returning actors, but all four is a bit much.
 * Production
 * Still a lot of c/e issues in this section. You bring up Depp without ever mentioning how he is relevant or who he plays (the production section should really be able to standalone). Also,
 * Verbinski directed more than just the third film, which becomes important later.
 * "and confirmed that they were working on the film" makes no sense in this context as it already appears to have been confirmed.
 * "The film was postponed until Disney felt secure to greenlight it" is redundant.
 * "Rønning and Sandberg had been chosen to direct..." this paragraph should go with them signing on.
 * "As with the fourth film, Depp was involved in scripting and planning Dead Men Tell No Tales." redundant.
 * You don't need to say "via Twitter".
 * Little paragraphs in the casting and filming sections can be combined with others.
 * Remove fluffy lines like "sailed into the Gold Coast" and "greenscreens were so tall they blocked sunlight ... added to the set to allow light to creep in". These can be worded in a more professional way, I'm sure.
 * The music and post-production sections should be expanded if possible, especially the post-production section. There is a lot to a film's post-production, and stuff like information on the visual effects are often readily available online. This should be as extensive as the filming section, if not more so.
 * Reception
 * This section is generally reasonable, but the box office subsection is way too much. It needs to be drastically cut down and c/e'd.
 * Let me know how you go with this. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Any update on how this is going? I have given you quite a bit of time to get this sorted. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Think I did most of what you asked, and am now trying to figure a second look taken by the one sent by the Copyeditor Guild. Can you check it? igordebraga ≠ 00:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You have addressed some of my concerns, but not all of them, and have frankly just taken too long. The article just isn't ready for GA status yet. I am going to fail this review, and leave you to try and improve the article some more. Have a look over my notes above, you haven't got them all yet. Also continue the work of c/e the article, the more you go over it the more you will find basic errors that require fixing. Once you think you have significantly improved the article, give it another nom and someone will give it a second review. Good luck!  - adamstom97 (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)