Talk:Spider-Man: Homecoming/GA1

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

Reviewer: Slightlymad (talk · contribs) 03:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I will be doing this; might take some time due to the length. Don't feel obligated but I have a GAN as well if you're interested. Slightly mad  03:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That was quick! I will see about your nomination, but I won't promise anything at the moment. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Generally well-written, though I have a wee bit punctuation- and quoting-related concerns raised below the comments
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Have yet to check the veracity of the sources. OTOH, there appears to be four errors in footnotes.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * The page has been locked in the wake of recent unconstructive edits, think we're good here
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments

 * Infobox
 * The production companies of the movie need a secondary source per Template:Infobox film


 * Lede
 * "with a screenplay -> from a screenplay


 * Cast
 * When you include the name of another film (i.e. The Impossible, Wolf Hall, and In the Heart of the Sea, etc.), make sure to include the year in which it was released. A majority of these titles appear in this section.
 * "salvager turned arms trafficker" -> hyphenated?
 * "there's parts of him that you go, 'You know what? I might see his point.'" -> since the quote is a fragment, terminal punctuation should be outside per MOS:LQ
 * "businessman with a family. He wants to look out for his kids ... He doesn’t have these big delusions of grandeur where he wants to take over the world, or replace the government, or even defeat the Avengers or anything. He just wants his shot at the good life"."-> extra quotation mark


 * Development
 * That quote box should be rendered as a blockquote as it's over 50 words. You also don't link from within quotes.
 * "there have been two retellings of that origin in the last [thirteen years, so] we are going to take it for granted that people know that, and the specifics." -> terminal punctuation should be outside
 * "and the Russo brothers, the directors of Captain America: Civil War." -> substitute comma with the em dash
 * "so that my movie transitions seamlessly with theirs." -> terminal punctuation outside
 * "I was really excited about that, because the other movies have shown what I described as the Penthouse level of the Marvel world, what it’s like to be Thor, Iron Man, you know, a billionaire playboy and all of that stuff. But what’s great about Spider-Man is that he’s a regular kid and so by showing his story you also get to show what the ground level is like in a world where the Avengers exist". -> paraphrase
 * "at that age, in high school, everything feels like life or death." -> terminal punctuation outside
 * WL pitch as it's a film-related jargon
 * "coming to terms with his new abilities and not yet being good with them, and carrying with him some real human fears and weaknesses," -> place comma outside
 * "if the threat became world-threatening, you would obviously bring in the big guys to handle it." -> terminal punctuation outside
 * "came to a new realization about why he was so popular originally: He gave a different perspective on this world that they were building. He was introduced in the ‘60s, when they had already built a crazy spectacular Marvel Universe ... to give a regular person’s perspective on it. And that ties in really nicely with what I get to do with this movie, which is" -> paraphrase this as it's over 50 words


 * Pre-production
 * "we want everyone to recognize themselves in every portion of our universe. [With this cast] especially, it really feels like this is absolutely what has to happen and continue." -> terminal punctuation outside
 * "to have fun with [references] while at the same time having it be different characters that can provide a different dynamic." -> terminal punctuation outside
 * "Spider-Man's costume in the film has more technical improvements than previous suits," -> than the previous suits
 * "he can adjust the spray, and he can even scroll through different web settings, like spinning web, web ball, ricochet web… you know, all of the stuff we can see him do in the comics... It’s kind of like a DSLR camera. He can shoot without it, or he can hold that thing a second, get his aiming right, and really choose a web to shoot." -> paraphrase


 * Filming
 * "end up [in New York] for one week or two." -> terminal punctuation outside
 * "from Goldstein and Daley's story" -> Goldstein's and Daley's
 * Goldstein and Daley's drafts -> Goldstein's and Daley's draft
 * "pretty substantial structural pass, rearranging things and building it into the sort of story arc we wanted it to be." -> terminal punctuation outside
 * "it’s all a little bit flexible when you get to set. You try things out, and you just need someone to be writing while you’re shooting." -> fix curly quote; place terminal punctuation outside
 * "constantly refer to ourselves as The Breakfast Club." terminal punctuation outside
 * Locations in the latter -> Locations in the latter area


 * Post-production
 * "just anything you could think of, we had poor Captain America do it." -> terminal punctuation outside
 * "was a really interesting thing in the development of the story. You couldn’t just rely on the tropes of the villain being a murderer and killing a bunch of people. He had to be redeemable in some capacity in the end and that he believes everything he said, especially about his family." -> terminal punctuation outside
 * "what does that mean for the next movie? I don't know, but it will force us to do something unique." Is this a sentence fragment? If not, then 'W' shouldn't be lowercase
 * "If that didn't work, the movie didn't work. We worked backwards and forwards from that moment. It was like two movies—it was the movie up until then and the movie after that moment. Because it had to surprise you, but it had to be true, also. You had to believe that we had set it up so that you would buy it [and it] doesn't seem like something out of left field. That's a pretty great moment and we didn't know until we showed it to audiences" -> paraphrase
 * "more than anything else, [what] I was looking forward to, and I got to have a lot of fun shooting that stuff." -> terminal punctuation outside
 * "giddy when we first came up with [that twist], because it's taking the obvious tension of meeting the father of the girl that you have a crush on, and multiplying it by 1,000, when you also realize he's the guy you've been trying to stop the whole time." -> terminal punctuation outside


 * Visual effect
 * in order to have a different look. -> to have a different look
 * Trixter contributed over 300 shots for the film, -> substitute comma with the em dash
 * "to have a clean, high tech, presentation Vault for the new suit. It should appear distinctively 'Stark' originated." -> terminal punctuation outside
 * "the way they were shot, it was lit to be a certain time of day, and afterwards it was decided to change that time of day." -> terminal punctuation outside


 * Marketing
 * and existing shots"just didn’t look that great" then. -> fix spacing and curly quote
 * The following quote fragments need their terminal punctuation placed outside
 * "clearer enthusiasm for Spider-Man."
 * "a chaotic mess of people looking in different directions, with little sense of what the film will deliver."
 * "too bogged down by the many different threads of the Marvel universe to highlight anything that's made Spider-Man: Homecoming seem special so far."
 * "have been alright thus far, but these ones probably tell general audiences to expect a very bloated movie."
 * "looks like it could be an actual scene from the film."


 * Critical response
 * I'm not crazy about this section for a number of reasons. Firstly, the report where you make the claim in the lede that the movie "received positive reviews, with critics praising the cast, particularly Holland, as well as the light tone and action sequences," is not further expounded here. Can you also provide a reliable, third-party source that explicitly states this? Secondly, it consists almost entirely of pull-quotes from film critics, with no significant thematic thread uniting them. See WP:RECEPTION for sage advice.


 * Should be good points to begin with as I verify the article against the sources which, mind you, gonna take a while. Slightly  mad  06:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I have addressed all of your concerns except for the critical response section. I'll try and get to that soon, if no one else does first. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The "production company" and "distributor" parameters are still unsourced; you may cite Variety's review to support this. The footnote errors in References section also have not been fixed yet. Slightly  mad  10:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the ref errors, and sourced the production companies in the body of the article. The distributor is attributed in a hidden note, take a look at it and tell me if I still need an inline cite. I have also had a go at the critical response section. I didn't realise how bad it is, and had been planning to give it a look-over between nominating this and the review actually starting. It is now up to the standard I would usually expect, let me know what you think. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do support them with inline cite to maintain text-source integrity. In regards to critical reception, I gotta tell you I'm still not that impressed. I was thinking of something akin to how the reception is written in articles such as The Shawshank Redemption or Leprechaun, the first of which I also reviewed against GA. See how their overall critical response are supported by attributions to RS? I believe this article's section should be rewritten in the same manner. Slightly  mad  07:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't see the difference between those articles and this one. Can you be more specific? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Difference is that this article's "positive review" claim in lede is unsourced. Per MOS:FILM, "The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources," which you still haven't done. Slightly  mad  07:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what you mean now. The sentence in the lead that you are referring to is a summary of the critical response section, which is backed up by reliable sources. Specifically, the positive reviews claim comes from the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores at the beginning of the section. The only time that more sources for overall reception would be required (the reason for that part in the MOS) is if I was making some claim that initial reviews were negative but that changed over time, for example, which would violate WP:SYNTH without a separate overall source. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * One last thing: I think that accolades section should be converted to prose—at least for now—since a single award-giving body is insufficient to warrant a wikitable. Slightly  mad  09:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Everything appears to be in shape now; it is a pass. Good work. Slightly  mad  04:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Slightlymad! - adamstom97 (talk) 05:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)