Talk:The Amazing Spider-Man (film)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments
I only made it a small way into this article before needing to take a break for baby daughter reasons, but here's a single comment before I forget it:

Okay, I'm still not quite all the way through, but here's some comments that go almost to the end:
 * "The first of at least two sequels, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, is scheduled for release in 2014" -- perhaps you might a word like "projected sequels"-- it's always possible that the second movie will flop so thoroughly that a third will not be made. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ as suggested. Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "In a September 2011 interview, Ifans said his character spends the majority of the film as a human." -- This seems like a detail left over from a pre-release version of the article--is it still relevant to cite a Sept 2011 statement about this? Perhaps it could just be shortened to "Ifans' character spends the majority of the film as a human." We know now that this is true.
 * ✅. Jhenderson 7 7 7  20:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Famed critic Roger Ebert" -- famed seems like an unneeded bit of peacocking here; I'd suggest just saying "critic"
 * Agreed. ✅. Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Walmart provided tours for the film and offered exclusive never-before-seen footage.[139]" -- this sounds a bit advert-like, and if Walmart itself is the only source for this information, it's probably not relevant enough to include.
 * I hid it now because of this issue. There are more sources all thanks to PR Newswire sources release in many parts of the press. That's where I first heard it from and first cited. The old source was just cited in a place where all Newswire link reports rot after a while. Would it still come off as advert like if other sources were to be added (or it to be worded differently) or do you think it's better without the sentence? Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I do think it's better without the sentence, but if it appeared in secondary sources, too, it's not an issue either way. One option would be to use one of the secondary sources and an archiver like, which gives a backup in case of linkrot. I'd suggest cutting either "exclusive" or "never before seen" if you restore the sentence, since the two phrases are a bit redundant. (The second is particularly advert-sounding, though there may be no way around it--maybe just "new"?) -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "They could view the first scene" -- who is "they" in this sentence--the operatives?
 * Correct. ✅. Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The sections on the trailers' receptions and particularly the viral marketing campaign seem longer than needed to me, but probably not outside the bounds of GA requirements.
 * I might do some trimming in the future. Some of the trailer receptions with lesser known citations I might remove if it becomes a issue. Jhenderson 7 7 7  20:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "The Amazing Spider-Man earned $262,030,663 in North America and $490,185,894 in other countries, for a worldwide total of $752,216,557.[4] Worldwide, the film is the 46th-highest-grossing film, the seventh-highest-grossing 2012 film,[236] the tenth highest-grossing superhero film,[237] the lowest-grossing Spider-Man film and the sixth-highest-grossing film distributed by Sony/Columbia.[238][239]" -- some of these statistics don't appear to be up-to-date. Check the current numbers and consider writing "as of Month Year" with them; that way it won't need to be updated again to be accurate. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. I do believe I updated it all now. You may make sure if you like. Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It does look updated, but I'd suggest adding "as of March 2013" or whatever the date of the source for any numbers that might change over time. For example, we don't know if it will stay the 9th-highest grossing superhero film. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

And through to the end: One change I made throughout the article was to refer to the Connors character as "the Lizard" rather than "Lizard" in most instances. It's how Wikipedia refers to him elsewhere, and also how he's listed in the IMDB credits and the other sources I glanced at. If this seems wrong to you, though, I'm glad to discuss further. I made other minor copyedits as I went; please doublecheck that I haven't inadvertently introduced any errors, and feel free to revert anything you disagree with.
 * Also, does the statistic that it's the 47th-highest-grossing film of all time have a source here? Looks like this is the source the other wikipedia article uses: . -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ I added "as of March 2013" and added the source for it's all time gross. I never noticed it was not there before. Jhenderson  7 7 7  22:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "The Amazing Spider-Man is the first of at least three films."" --this sentence ends with a quotation mark, but it's not clear where the quotation begins.
 * ✅. Fixed. Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "The Amazing Spider-Man is the first of at least three films" -- also, this sentence should probably say "planned" or "projected" per above. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Overall, I still have a few checks to make, but this seems ripe for promotion. I think it's excessively detailed at some points, particularly in pre-release press announcements/speculation, but that's a common problem for comic book movie articles, and I don't think it rises to a point here where it violates the GA criteria. It appears well sourced and well written, and covers major aspects of the film. Thanks for all your work on this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Images
My go-to guy for copyright says that File:Spider-Maneffects.ogg and File:Webshootersfilm.jpg should be removed from the article: "If they're not essential or close to essential, I doubt they pass WP:NFCC#8... Also, note that statements like "The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work." are patently false." I'd say these two aren't essential, unfortunately; though a good bonus, the article would still be completely informative without either.

What you can do is use Template:External media if you like. That directs the user to the media without actually displaying it on the page. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not sure I agree. I had a go to guy before I put the design image up and he elaborated on how it was ok. Also I would also note Prometheus (film)'s  (a GA) images as prose. Note it's design section.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  08:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also the video file I think does qualify for WP:NFCC because it depicts how the the special effects are made and helps gain the reader's understanding of the commentary on the image but that is just IMO and I would like to hear more on you're thoughts on it. Jhenderson  7 7 7  08:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Tell you what, let me put you two directly in conversation. You can join the thread at User_talk:Crisco_1492. His points do seem like good ones to me, but I'm not an expert. If there's not consensus there after a bit of conversation, and you'd still like to keep them, perhaps the fastest way to come to a general consensus might be to nominate both media for deletion and give them a "trial by fire"; that way we'll have a conclusive community consensus one way or the other. Sound ok? -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3rd party asked for comment by nominator: Normally it is ok If and ONLY if the work furthers the readers understanding more than prose can allow. In this case I think the video meets that requirement as the Lizard character is a large component of the film and its technical underpinnings are mentioned throughout the article. The web shooter article, if we are to be very, very strict probably provides information that text can accurately replicate as it isn't a complex image, that said I'm not sure where it falls in terms of copyrightable material since it's a series of basic shapes rather than some complex, identifiable image. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the continued work on this knotty issue (and thanks, DWB for the outside opinion--I'm very glad to get another view on this.) The solution here seems like a good one to me. Having the four links instead of one video allows the user to access more media, and the links to the external site obviate any copyright issues. If this solution is okay with everyone, I'd consider the issue resolved for purposes of GA. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I am glad that helps. I would like to note that I have added a few more information along with copy editing on the effects section that might need looking into before we decide that the situation resolved. Jhenderson 7 7 7
 * Thanks. I'll do a quick copyedit of that when you're done to avoid any edit conflicts. I think all that's left here is adding in that budget source (noted above) and adding some "as of statements" for budget records that might go out of date (47th of all time, etc.). -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

New material

 * Quick prose question about the new material: "The visual designers helped bring the Lizard to life by first building a digital version of the Lizard of a production design mechanic" -- I'm not sure what this means. Did they built a model of a regular, real-life lizard of one of their team? (If so, Lizard shouldn't be capitalized the second time.) -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It was good that you proofread what I said like I requested. I quote the source while linking it. "To bring director Marc Webb's vision for the Lizard to life on screen, ImageWorks artists first built a digital version of the production design maquette." Also if you don't understand that way (just let me know). I get it because I watched the video. Jhenderson  7 7 7  23:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Makes sense now. I'm going to give this a second top-to-bottom readthrough tomorrow, but unless anything new comes up, I think we're good to go! Thanks for all your work during this review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)