Talk:The Last Airbender (film)/GA2

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 23:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Talk page and history show stability
 * Lead a good length for article
 * Infobox satis
 * Two fair use images: movie poster in infobox and stills of animation process elements. There are no free images, so this seems unweighted. Ideally, two or more free (commons) images would be added to illustrate, to show that illustration of the subject isn't reliant on non-free media. A suggestion would be a photo of Noah Ringer, for who it was the first film role, for example.
 * Formatting of the awards table should be fixed, and refs added.
 * Copyvio check:
 * From IndieWire there is some close paraphrasing around the quotation, and arguably the quotation is too long.
 * From btlnews: quite heavy copyvio, it looks like quote mining of original text from the source being used in plain prose. It's been cherrypicked from throughout the source and condensed together in the article.
 * From CBC (and other sources using the same report): copying over original text around quotation. said Michael Le of Racebending.com, a fan site calling for a boycott of the martial-arts fantasy is quite unique phrasing
 * From Boston.com: copied phrase the Media Action Network for Asian-Americans urged a film boycott for the first time in the organization's 18-year history should be written in original words
 * From io9: The same, with Producer Frank Marshall explained that they have high hopes to stick to a PG rating:
 * Reworked the copyvios and reformatted the awards table. Rusted AutoParts  05:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * great, picking up with prose/coverage/etc Kingsif (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Is there a ref for 143 minutes (originally, cut to 103 minutes) in the infobox? Also, it would be better as a footnote than a bullet list
 * Removed it completely. Rusted AutoParts  21:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Sources all look reliable, some quotes may be missing refs? Also needs a ref for DVD/Blu-ray release date, Happy Meals, and half the Casting controversy section - which should perhaps be moved up to be a subsection below the Casting section?
 * gathered the sources missing, but could you point out specifically which quotes you mean? Rusted AutoParts  06:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Where quotations end a sentence but there is no ref at the end of the sentence - like the example mentioned below, where the next sentence talks about something different so it doesn't seem like the ref applies. It makes it easier to find specifically the source if it's attached to the sentence with the quote in it. Kingsif (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * In lead, needs a comma in of the US grossing after "US".


 * I'm not sure it needs the "alike" in the original animated series alike; the sentence works fine without it and lead phrasing is often relatively simplistic
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  21:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Good that the lead mentions the new Netflix series :)
 * Plot is a bit too long
 * Not sure if a trimming is necessary, it does meet the 700 limit WP:FILMPLOT requirement (sits at 600). Rusted AutoParts  21:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The caption for the photo of Ringer suggests that he started shaving his head for the film, but the casting section suggests he was already doing this earlier - neither sound sure though, so if this could be clarified? And perhaps add a ref to the image caption since it's in a different section?
 * Added "during training" Rusted AutoParts  21:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * In the character description of Aang, first, the age should be numerical, not written out. Second, isn't 100 + 12 just 112, not 113? Unless it's 'about' 100 years, which should be clarified?
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  21:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * In Zuko's description, would Age sixteen. A Fire Nation prince... not be better as "A sixteen-year-old Fire Nation prince..."? Same comment for the rest of these.
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  21:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Is Seychelle Gabriel as Yue right? (I thought she was in the animation, no?)
 * Yeah she played Yue in the film. Rusted AutoParts  21:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * In the Master Pakku description, it shouldn't have a comma in Northern Water Tribe, who
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  21:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * In Development, it says based on the series without establishing the series - fairly obvious and mentioned in the lead, but not actually written into the body at this point, so should probably be incorporated somehow.
 * Piped the show into the word "series". Rusted AutoParts  22:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding quotation marks, even though the article is in AmEng, Wikipedia overall (last I heard) uses logical punctuation, i.e. the punctuation should be outside the quotation marks. Kingsif (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe I adjusted this. Rusted AutoParts  22:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * There's a quotation from Shyamalan saying Once I saw the amazing world that Mike and Bryan created, with links to Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko - a few sentences later, their names are written out in full and linked again. Is it possible to quotation paraphrase to put their full names in the first time (i.e. "Once I saw the amazing world that [Michael Dante DiMartino] and [Bryan Konietzko] created") to remove the dup links?
 * I elected to delink their names in that sentence. Not sure if that's the best option though. Rusted AutoParts  06:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * within an interview should just be "in an interview"
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  06:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Is the person mentioned called Nathan Blackmer or A Nathan Blackmer? I.e. is it intending to say "A [person called] Nathan Blackmer" or "[This man,] A Nathan Blackmer"? Shyamalan's statement isn't clear, but if it's A Nathan Blackmer, a period after the 'A' would help clarify.
 * I think it may be the former. No Google results produced a Nathan Blackmer or A. Nathan Blackmer outside of here and the ATLA wiki. I lean towards the former as I figure if it was part of their name it would include a period. Rusted AutoParts  06:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * What's the source for Producer Frank Marshall stated he hoped for the film to achieve a family friendly rating: "I'm not even sure we want to get in the PG-13 realm."?
 * It shares a source with the Shyamalan quote that mentions Blackmer. Rusted AutoParts  06:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't spend $250 million in a trilogy be "on a trilogy"?
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  06:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * And with later over $130 million being spent be "with over $130 million later being spent"
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  06:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Remove hyphen from highly-successful
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  06:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Yue in the casting section is described as another of Sokka's love interests, but there are no other love interests mentioned in the article?
 * Reworded. Rusted AutoParts  06:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * At a mention of Peltz' casting, it notes she was a fan of Avatar: The Last Airbender, the animated series on which the film is based - which can easily be condensed to "a fan of the animated series", providing it has been added above.
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  06:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Need a comma after "throwing" in and throwing and
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  06:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Before the quotation starting "He isn't necessarily bad", a colon would be better than a period to connect the context to the quote
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  06:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Is Patel is an "18 year old with all this energy," really relevant/necessary coverage? There's already much more on Zuko/Dev Patel than other cast
 * Removed. Rusted AutoParts  06:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Should Pagoda not have a capital P? It appears to be the proper name of the building
 * Capitalized. Rusted AutoParts  06:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Remove hyphen from special-effects
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  06:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Are there any wikilinks for Ontelaunee Township and at the William Penn Memorial Fire Tower?
 * Yes for the first, and that has bee added. Rusted AutoParts  06:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The whole quote from Pamela Shupp can be reformatted/written originally to sound more natural, something like "Some scenes were also shot in Philadelphia after the Berks Economic Development company showed..." etc.
 * I believe I've adjusted it. Rusted AutoParts  06:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * planned it all in a story-board book - you mean he storyboarded it?
 * Changed. Rusted AutoParts  07:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * was posed with - "was tasked with", or "was posed with the task of"
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  07:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Needs another comma before "though" in applied though,
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  07:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The introduction In matte paintings, the paintings sounds awkward in this use: perhaps "The film also used matte paintings, which..."?
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  20:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a lot of repetition about the animation of animals, particularly Momo the lemur/fruit bat.
 * Reworked. Rusted AutoParts  20:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * With the phrasing of The film marks the seventh collaboration between Howard and M. Night Shyamalan, after the 2008 film The Happening. I was expecting all six to be listed (which wouldn't have been ideal) - as it stands, though, it is a little strange. Perhaps change the second clause, to say "with the latest being the 2008 film...", or scrap the example altogether
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  20:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * remove dup link (and full name) of Frank Marshall in one sentence
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  20:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * perhaps rephrase the part, with a twelfth track, called "Airbender Suite" running at nearly eleven minutes to something more like "and one track, "Airbender Suite", that is nearly eleven minutes long." for simplicity/prevent confusion
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  20:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * What does the casting of the heroes and villains seemed to be backward racially from the show even mean? "backward racially"?
 * I flipped the words around and I think it makes more sense. Rusted AutoParts  20:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I see the racebending mention and want to ask if this term comes from this film - being 'airbender' - or if that's just coincidence? (I just checked the racebending article, which does indeed say that it was coined because of this film) This is definitely worth a mention.
 * I am wanting to add that info in but the source in racebending that describes the term being coined due to the film is a dead link. Presently can't find a new source that makes this statement. Rusted AutoParts  20:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Is there any more context for the Shyamalan quote "Ultimately, this movie, and then the three movies, will be the most culturally diverse tent-pole movies ever released, period." - it's a strange claim without context?
 * Would my addition of "to reassure critics" make it fit better? Rusted AutoParts  20:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * A lot of this paragraph needs refs, and quote formatting could be improved (per suggestions already made above)
 * Also something that might be for coverage here: Rathbone was in the Twilight films at the same time, is this a case of finding the biggest name possible without consideration for if it's an appropriate choice? There's a quote from Rathbone about suspension of disbelief but nothing else? Of course, if this isn't something discussed in media, then it isn't due for the article
 * I feel there might be inappropriate coverage of teaser trailers, with dates and film attachments for all of them but no description of what is in them? Maybe just give details of the first one (leave it as it is) and then say there were three more?
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  20:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Needs refs, maybe add something more on the Happy Meals, or not mention them at all if there's nothing more to say than 'existed'
 * Removed Happy Meals. Rusted AutoParts  20:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The Nickelodeon toys line doesn't need wikilinks to all the characters, because they appear above
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  20:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The Last Airbender action figures are expected to be released in three "waves"; wave one on June 1,[69] wave two near the film's July release date, and wave three near the 2010 holiday season needs updating
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  20:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Can you integrate that Dallas Middaugh quote better?
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  20:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The manga section first says that Alison Wilgus and Dave Roman did the comics, then says that one of them was done by Joon Choi and the other illustrated by Nina Matsumoto - I don't know if the section is contradictory or just unclear, but clarification is needed. Perhaps make it chronological, too? And then there are comics for Nick Magazine - were these before or after? Is that why Wilgus and Roman were asked to do the manga?
 * I chipped it down to "The second manga was released on June 22, 2010". Will this suffice? Rusted AutoParts  20:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The first sentence and half the third sentence of Release are basically unnecessary, though keeping On June 16, 2010, it was revealed that the film would be released on July 1, 2010 would be fine.
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  20:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Make Home media one paragraph, chronoogically, add ref.
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  21:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Move Box office to Release
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  21:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Too many numbers (and stats) in Box office. Especially bad is ending a sentence with a currency figure and starting the next one with a percentage, which is particularly hard to read.
 * I chopped a bunch of the "behind X movie" stuff, think it makes it better. Rusted AutoParts  20:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Should also combine the short paragraphs in Box office.
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  20:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Could the critical responses be better grouped - collecting all the response to 3D, script, casting a little tighter than it is now will likely mean you can cut some of the quotes, and it will flow better
 * The linguistic difference re. 'bender' is good to note, but probably up in the development/writing part of the article, rather than as a critique.
 * Disagree This is not about development or writing (failures), this is about the UK, about the reaction/response of a critic and British audiences. It would not be appropriate to move it, the Critic response section is the appropriate place for it. -- 109.78.218.56 (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this - sitting alongside Casey Affleck, Jeff Bridges, Andrew Garfield, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Mahershala Ali, Patel, Garfield and Bridges were asked about big budget movies - long list of unrelated people needed?
 * Removed the actors. I think the additions were to emphasis what those actors were discussing but since the other actors' comments weren't included in the page, the list isn't prudent. Rusted AutoParts  21:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, Patel's criticism of the experience probably belongs somewhere else - he's not a film critic, and neither was the context of that statement.
 * I took "Director's responses" and made it "Crew responses" so that the Patel info had a place to go. Will that suffice? Rusted AutoParts  21:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * More dup links/names to remove in the responses - Noah Ringer, DiMartino and Konietzko
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  21:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * In the Creators' responses, it sounds like DiMartino and Konietzko were very against the film and Shyamalan's direction. In the development section above, it is said in wikivoice that they were supportive. Presumably, they gave a standard 'looks good' soundbite in 2009 or whenever, and didn't reveal their true feelings until afterwards - something the 2014 podcast source confirms. Could the treatment of their earlier reaction be changed a little to not sound definitive in their support? Perhaps even moving the creators' response section up (whether the section or just the info) because it's not really about a response to the film but the production. And Dante Basco's part fits well with the Patel criticism.
 * Moved creators response up, and put Basco's with Patel's. Rusted AutoParts  21:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * multiple critics listed above is unnecessary, just "multiple critics" will do
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  21:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * stating. "There - why is there a period here?
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  21:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * "References" in the awards table is typically "Refs"
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  21:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Just make Canceled sequels one paragraph, perhaps use less quotations to tidy up the 'narrative' of the chronology
 * ✅ Rusted AutoParts  21:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Overall

 * Kingsif (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe I've tackled everything. Rusted AutoParts  20:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks good - did you want to respond to the 'audience' comments below? I thought the Cinemascore source was fine, and it's not WP generalizing to say that the stats for audience response are about average, so to me it's a non-issue and I didn't mention it. If you want to address the IP's "serious concerns" about... a source using numbers not words? ... you can. Kingsif (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally don’t see the issue so I don’t feel it’s needing addressing. Rusted AutoParts  23:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Audiences
The article includes several claims of that "audiences" were also critical of the film, such as the Critical response section which begins with "The Last Airbender was panned by critics, fans of the animated series, and general audiences." The only actual source to back up this generalization about audiences seems to be the C grade from Cinemascore (and even that is a small sampling of opening weekend audiences). So while the statement is probably true, it is a dubious generalization, and I have serious concerns about dubious generalizations. -- 109.78.218.56 (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but who are you and can you not hijack a review when you've been editing (checks contribs) less than a day. Kingsif (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not have any reason to believe that editors were not supposed to or allowed to comment on GA reviews, but perhaps there are details about the process that I am unfamiliar with. If there are specific rules about this process that I should familiarize myself with I would encourage you to point them out.
 * Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, my anonymity, or long history of editing or lack of one, shouldn't be relevant. I did not think reputation or history were a prerequisite to participating.
 * You are evaluating the article, do you disagree with the substance of my comments? Do you not agree the article would be better if generalizations unsupported by sources were avoided?
 * I made comments in WP:GOODFAITH, I'm don't understand why you would characterize my comments as a "hijack", but if review process is supposed to only involve one editor and one reviewer then I apologize in advance for not knowing about those rules. -- 109.78.218.56 (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, how about you go read the GAN reviewing instructions? Don't claim ignorance of the rules while suggesting you know enough to review. Comments are fine, but don't start new sections and begin reviewing yourself and telling the original reviewer they're wrong straight up unless there are serious concerns, especially when otherwise everything has been moving along fine. I'd also encourage you to make an account and get some actual experience before reviewing GANs: you need experience to be able to assess a good article and an account provides accountability. If you keep jumping in on other editors' reviews like this, you're going to be quickly blocked for disruption. Also, ping to keep an eye on this IP. Kingsif (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Since I've been pinged, I took a look around. Kingsif, it looks like this IP has been around for quite a while, albeit under a multitude of IP addresses, which is what can happen if one's ISP keeps reusing and reassigning addresses with any frequency. See Talk:Demolition Man (film) for various 109.78 and 109.79 addresses going back over a year, including the current one. Also, I do have to point out that on WP:GAN, there's the following text on each review line: Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome.) That the additional comments were added in a new section seems to happen often enough—I've done it myself so as not to interfere with an ongoing review, but to point out a new issue that seemed to need addressing. As reviewer, you do have final say, but others are always allowed to point something out that may need addressing. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did write how comments are welcome but, though the IP's may have been in good faith, the comment 'correcting' me above in my own review, and then seeming to start their own below is more hijacking than helpful. If the IP has been around, have they tried this elsewhere? I don't think they'll be able to start GAN reviews without an account, so is this their MO? (and, the format of the comment above seems more like the format of ITN/consensus discussions, which is strange) Kingsif (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If I have commented on a GA review before it has not been more than a few times, I haven't had any reason to look deeply into the rules. You obviously know the GA rules, highlighting a relevant part of it should be a lot easier for you, than it would be for me to find what ever thing it is you think I'm doing so horribly wrong as to accuse me of "hijacking". Instead of the hostility you could have suggested I do things in a different way, or keep my comments to the article talk page. Taking it personally or making it about reputation doesn't help anyone, isn't improving the article the most important thing anyway? I'm allowed to not have an account and I prefer it that way, and instead of being yet another fake name I hope people focus instead on improving the articles.
 * I threw in my 2 cents, I'm sorry if that upset anyone, let's get back to improving the article as best we can. -- 109.78.218.56 (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want you can delete this thread/subsection. -- 109.78.218.56 (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What I was referring to was the part BlueMoonset mentions about reviews typically being done by one editor. The fact you immediately jumped in while the review was ongoing, with a new section that didn't seem to acknowledge there was a review but also the tone of the comment you left in my review above, occurred to me as hijacking because it seemed that some new IP user either thought that reviews were a community discussion or a free-for-all, and rather than being helpful, you were saying 'I see you opened a review, but screw you, my turn'. Maybe it wouldn't have seemed so out-of-place if the new section had addressed the nominator (and the reviewer) and said "I was also looking at this, have you thought about"... and if you hadn't dropped an opinion in the middle of my review. As said, if you want to do GAN reviews, you would need an account. Being an IP means you can't, which can also make users think you may be 'hijacking' (i.e. if an IP user is thinking 'I can't open a review for this article I want, but someone else has done it now so I'll claim it', but this was only ever in the back of my mind) Kingsif (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)