Talk:X-Men: The Last Stand/GA2

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

Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi all,

Congratulations on a nice article on a difficult topic, X-Men is a more demanding than usual film article given the complexity of production, size of budget and nuances of the plot and themes. It's a strong article but I feel it is not up to GA status yet in a number of ways:

1. Coverage The X men films have been noted for their development of political and social themes through the use of comic book fantasy. Despite the numerous issues raised in this film, the article makes no mention of them. For example here is Ebert: "There are so many parallels here with current political and social issues that to list them is to define the next presidential campaign. Just writing the previous paragraph, I thought of abortion, gun control, stem cell research, the "gay gene" and the Minutemen. "Curing" mutants is obviously a form of genetic engineering..."

Writing about the themes of a film is often the hardest part of an article: they are implicit so the editor relies on a critic to draw them out, often a solid themes section must be pieced together from many sources.

2. The Plot section is admirably succinct, however at times it veers into a slightly in-universe perspective, for example by referring without explanation to characters by their mutant names. This strains a reader unfamiliar with neither the comic books nor the film. Similarly, phrases like "tele-kinetically slams" and "disintegrates" could be replaced with "throw" and "kill". I appreciate the difficulties of describing a superhero film in an encyclopedic style, but remember the object of this section is to give a brief overview of the happenings to allow readers to understand the rest. Phrases such as "Following the end credits,..." are more successful since they describe the structure of the film better, introduce cinematic terms and avoid the in-universe POV.

3. Cast section This section is completely uncited. There is extensive comparison to the comics without reference, nor explanation for somebody coming to the topic for the first time. This is interesting material, however there should be some citation. Other characters could be introduced in the plot synopsis or left out entirely Dr. Rao, Mr Worthington and Jimmy could be included elsewhere, and the President and other politicians with minor roles excised. A discussion of cast and/or actors in wikipedia is not the same as a complete credits list in a film.

The "section also refers to a "secret ending" is this a post credits scene? That's not the same meaning and confusing. The supposition that Prof Xavier entered another's body is just that, and Olivia Williams' presence needs a source since it's not in the credits.

4. Lead is too short. it should be 3-4 paragraphs. Try cutting the list of directors who didn't direct the film, and expand the summary of production, themes and critical reception.

5. Critical reception section is too short for a film that received that much attention. A longer and deeper summation of critic's responses could be had. The article also credits comments to "Ebert and Roeper", but in fact those remarks were said by Ebert in his Chicago Sun Times review, the source is to his website.

6. Prose glitches (A partial list) Development section: *"X2" - this is an encyclopedia, not a fanzine. Prefer "X-Men 2"
 * "composer / editor" Try, "John Ottman, the composer and editor...
 * "Though Singer, Harris and Dougherty had yet to complete a script, the director has revealed that at the time of his departure they had partially completed a story treatment for the film which would have focused exclusively on Jean Grey's resurrection"
 * Rewrote.
 * Nothing wrong, it's the film's actual title...
 * Oops, mea cupla. I notice that, though disputed, X2 is the accepted title on Wikipedia, so we'll leave it for now.--Ktlynch (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Filming:


 * "The $210 million budget[1] was also the most expensive film to be made, passing King Kong with an additional $3 million.[7][31]" - The budget was a film?
 * "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, which was released two months later, would later break The Last Stand's budget." - Break the budget or break the record? Is this really the best expression possible?
 * Fixed.

Box office


 * References to "domestic" and "foreign". This is pulled straight from Box office Mojo. Wikipedia should represent a worldwide view of the subject, not an American one. There are other sources of information available
 * BOM has no problem (it's used for most movie articles, and the backing by IMDB/Amazon makes it credible), but expanded.

Visual effects

The source uses the correct word: rejuvenated

7. Infobox "Followed by X-Men Origins" is this film really a continuation? It is not part of the series. If anything X Men four is, though this has not even been confirmed yet. Delete it.
 * "Suceeded" is not in cronology, but real life production - in a similar case, Return of the Jedi is suceeded by the first prequel. igordebraga ≠ 15:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was getting at a different issue: whether or not the spin-off origin films are part of the series. The X 1-3 series follows a connected story arc, with the (mostly) same protagonists and antagonists, and it had intended to have the same director. Since the studio bought the rights to all X men comics, does that meant that all future X Men films are part of a series? I wasn't talking about about chronology or financing as such, but rather what constitutes that definition. You undoubtedly know more about them than me, but that is what it hinges on. From that point of view I'd rather see X Men 1-3 grouped together. --Ktlynch (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I feel this article has much potential, and hard work has been done up to now. The development section, for instance, prose problems aside, is strong and there is a lot of interesting information in the article. The history and talk page show a lot of passion and work went into this, and that should be acknowledged. However, a close reading reveals not just omissions but inaccuracies, and that's before a very detailed check of sources. Nevertheless, I feel these problems can be worked through and the article improved. I'll put the review on hold for a week and we'll see what progress is made.

Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the long wait. I've been swamped with homework the past week. I'll start addressing the concerns in due time. By the way, thanks for reviewing. Wildroot (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There has been a sincere effort to make some improvement, and two editors have expressed intentions to improve it. I'll leave it on hold for another few days and chip in if I have some time. --Ktlynch (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the problems remain, and there is continuously fancruft comic book stuff being inserted. If editors are interested in improving the article, I'd be happy to join and review any changes. Given the backlog at WP:GAN I cannot leave this on hold any longer. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)