Talk:The Fifth Element/GA1

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

Reviewer: Meetthefeebles (talk · contribs) 11:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Big fan of this film, so I'll review :) Give me a few hours to put something together... Meetthefeebles (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Right, let's get started. First things first:


 * Disambiguation: Two found using the Dablinks tool; Gaumont and Golden Reel Awards both link to disambiguation pages. Can these be fixed please?
 * Images: The infoxbox poster is fine under it's fair use rationale, the gun image is fine and the cab image is also probably fine under it's fair use license. Captions are fine and correctly formatted per WP:Caption and compliant with WP:WAF.
 * Dead links; One showing on the search tool but when I click it seems okay. A few redirects; it might be worth updating the urls in ref.35 & ref.7 to help prevent possible WP:LINKROT
 * Links 52 and 58 are now also dead. Can these be replaced? Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Quick Fail issues: Can't see any cleanup tags, there seems at first glance through to be plenty of inline references, no evidence of edit warring

As always, I'll be reviewing using WP:WIAGA. I'll also refer to and be using as a guide WP:MOSFILM, which although not strictly part of the GA criteria does provide excellent guidance on style, content and structure which will assist with assessing c.1b and c.3a-b.

Okay, I'll work through by section and leave any comments below:

Lead
 * Per WP:FILMLEAD, name, year of release, genre & nationality of film all present as required. First paragraph correctly identifies the director and the stars of film, though part of me wonders if Chris Rock is also a 'star' of this film (admittedly he is absent from the promo poster).
 * I wonder if there is merit in blue-linking Major?
 * A question – is the central plot of the film the destruction of Earth or the 'survival of humanity' as you state? Certainly the Great Evil is stopped prior to destroying earth but in the film universe humanity has colonised various other planets.
 * There is an inconsistency with the budget figure I've spotted when looking at one of your sources; the book cited at ref.5, 'Playing for Profit' (at p.58), claims the budget was $50m. The lead of the article claims it was $90m and this is sourced later at ref.2. That is a big discrepancy.
 * The rest of the lead looks fine to me.

Plot This section looks fine. Unreferenced but permitted by WP:MOSFILM. I can't detect any obvious evaluative elements. 678 words means it is within the guidance provided by the MoS. Some small comments/suggestions:
 * Suggest blue linking extraterrestrials
 * Also suggest blue linking sarcophagus
 * Per WP:CENTURY, uncapitalize '23rd Century'
 * "The priest of the Mondoshawan key, Vito Cornelious..." reads a little odd to me. Suggest slight amendment to read "The current holder of the Mondoshawan key, priest Vito Cornelious..."
 * Suggest blue linking shapeshifting? It also appears to be one word rather than a pair of hyphenated words.
 * Picky point – is Leeloo 'created' or 'recreated' from the rescued hand?
 * The attack on Leeloo by several Mangalores and also her being shot at (and seriously wounded) by Zorg on the cruiseliner before being found by Dallas with her hand dangling from an air duct is missing from the plot. This seems to me to be a reasonably important plot point and perhaps should be included?
 * Consider blue linking consummate

Cast
 * I would expect to see a little more in this section that simply a list of the main protagonists per WP:CASTLIST. However, I note that much of the suggesting material from the guideline is included in the Production section, so I see no major reason for qualm here.

Themes
 * This is considered a primary section by WP:MOSFILM and it is missing. Can a theme section be added; there are certainly several that seem to run through the film (war/violence/aggression greed, issues relating to capitalism to name some off the top of my head)?

Production
 * Unlink Maïwenn Le Besco per WP:OVERLINK; it is already linked in the cast section above.
 * "The Fifth Element was shot in Super 35 mm film format. Most of the principal photography was filmed at Pinewood Studios in England. Some scenes were also shot on location in Mauritania. The concert scenes were filmed at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, except for the special effect shots that show the Planet Fhloston through the ship's portholes. Nearly all of the visual effects scenes were hard-matted with the aid of computer-generated imagery." This section appears to be unreferenced?
 * Otherwise this section is sound; engaging, well drafted and good use of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE

Release
 * The Initial Screening section is a near word for word copy of the source material and is perhaps a little close to WP:COPYVIO. I'm not sure necessarily that there is a major concern here but if you can change the text it might be better?
 * Is "major box office success" puffery? Suggest finding a reliable source which states that as such as using that here? Also, unless I'm going blind, I can't find anything in ref.2 about a worldwide gross of "over $263m"? Ref.3 seems to be the correct one to use here?
 * I'd like to see some sources for "The first Blu-ray Disc release of the film occurred on 20 June 2006. It was widely criticized as having poor picture quality by Blu-ray standards, " – you provide one source which isn't a 'wide criticism' even accounting for the wording it uses.
 * The rest of this section is very good

References
 * What makes ref.4 a reliable source? It just looks like a Blue-Ray shop to me.
 * I looked at pretty much all of the English references and they are almost all fine. I'll have to trust you on those in French, as I can't speak French. The format is sound overall.

Overall comments
 * This one is pretty close to GA standards. The prose is very good save a couple of tiny issues raised above, the referencing is consistent and comprehensive, the images are good, there are no WP:NPOV issues or WP:OR. The only really substantive issue is one of depth; I'd expect to see a theme section in compliance with the WP:MOSFILM guideline and once this is added and the other smaller issues above are addressed I think we'll be about there. I'll place the article on hold pending a response. Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the review. I'm just about to go to work so i'll get started on all these issues in a few hours. Freikorp (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Remaining issues OK. I've looked at all your suggestions and I have implemented almost all of them. I would like to note:
 * I previously started a discussion on the article's talk page pointing out the discrepancies I had found in the film's budget. I have found 5 separate figures for the budget however I have found the figure of 90 million in four separate references so that is what I am going with. Feel free to discuss; I am unsure what to do with so much conflicting information so going with the mode seemed to be the best option.
 * Hmmm, a difficult one. What I would suggest is to perhaps consider adding a note, outlining the discrepancy and the reason for preferring $90m. Something along the lines of The budget of the film was $90m{note}" then in the note something like "This is the most widely quoted figure{ref}{ref}{ref} but other sources show budgets of $60m {ref} and $50m {ref}." I think that should deal with the discrepancy? Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You are correct in stating the paragraph "The Fifth Element was shot in Super 35 mm film format..." was unreferenced. It was already in the article before I started editing it. I left it in in good faith. I have now removed it. I honestly don't mind one way or the other.
 * I'd like to keep it in as it is information which benefits the article but if it cannot be sourced it will have to go I'm afraid. Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Links 52 and 58 are now also dead. Can these be replaced? Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You state "What makes ref.4 a reliable source? It just looks like a Blue-Ray shop to me." I don't disagree with you that it is a blu-ray shop, but every source, regardless of notability, can be considered reliable for something. This reference is only used for a review of the blu-ray (completely acceptable imo) and that the film was described as Besson's 'life-long pet project'. Considering that we have a separate more reliable source that Besson did in fact start working on the film as a teenager I believe using this source to state that it has been described as a life-long project is reasonable. This statement is not biased in any way. Again, I am happy to discuss, and I am also willing to remove the reference and all attributed statements if it comes to the point where it is keeping the article from reaching GA status.
 * I am happy to accept the source for the purpose of a review; that is what it purports to be and so fair enough. I am less inclined to accept the source as reliably recounting Besson's life long ambition/project. Per WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Does this source have such a reputation? My preference is to take out the 'lifelong project' statement: we already have a supported statement that he worked on the film at age 16 so nothing too great is lost from the article IMO. Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The only suggestion/comment that I have yet to address is the lack of a theme section. I will endeavour to work on that tomorrow. Freikorp (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Good progress being made. I'll continue to leave this on-hold whilst the outstanding issues are worked on further. Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have now finalised the budget issue and the bluray shop reference issue, and have addressed the new dead links issue. I have added a theme section. I know it is a bit thin, but i'm not only having a hard time finding references i'm also not entirely sure how to write the section. I was looking through current good articles for inspiration and I noted many of them do not have a theme section. If the section is too small to meet GA status or is inappropriately worded please let me know; any advice on how to write the section would be appreciated. Freikorp (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the theme section would be a bit thin for a feature article nom but for a good article nom what is there now is fine. I think we are about done.... Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I've assessed this article against the requirements of WP:WIAGA and, in the light of improvements carried out, I'm awarding GA-status. Well done! I think in due course this one would have half a chance at FAC but if you planned to give it a shot there I'd recommend a peer review first. In the meantime, please consider reviewing another good article nomination. Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. I'll review a good article nominee myself when time permits, hopefully soon :) . Freikorp (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)