Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Casino Royale (2006 film)/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

Casino Royale (2006 film)
previous FAC

I think that a lot of work has been done on the sources as well as the language. This should be sufficient for FA. Vikrant Phadkay 16:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think the lead paragraphs do not meet requirements. Might want to check out Guide to writing better articles to get an idea.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I made a few edits on the lead. Is it proper now? Vikrant Phadkay 16:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No. It has 5 paragraphs worth of lead. The size of the article wouldn't warrant more than 3 paragraphs. These paragraphs need to be good, full paragraphs that summarize the production of the film, and the impact the film had when released.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bignole. The number of lead paragraphs is too overwhelming, and the content needs to be summarized in a more concise manner. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Alright the paragraphs have been integrated. Any other flaw? Vikrant Phadkay 16:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't think that the unreferenced Cameos section is appropriate. There's no independent, secondary sources verifying that a crew member or an actor of a previous film did have a cameo in the film.  I have no idea what producer Michael G. Wilson looks like, and it's unreasonable to identify people like him by face.  The whole section reads like trivia -- is it really necessary to mention all the cameos in a film?  What encyclopedic value exists?  Is there not a citation that says, "Several crew members and former James Bond girls had cameos in Casino Royale," without fancruftish detail of precisely where you can spot them in the film? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ I have removed all the trivia on the cameos; should be fine now. Vikrant Phadkay 16:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Needs copy-editting by someone unfamiliar with the article. For example, these sentences could be better phrased, "Several locations around New Providence were used for filming during February and March, largely on Paradise Island and in the southern Coral Harbour area, with an abandoned Royal Bahamian Air Force base being a particularly important location for the production." "The three biggest scenes involving physical effects in the film were those involving the chase at a building site in Madagascar, the Miami International Airport tarmac chase sequence, and the sinking Venetian house, with scenes located on the Grand Canal and in Pinewood Studios." There is also some overlinking of common words, and underlinking of full dates in the footnotes. Epbr123 18:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ The sentences have been modified. Vikrant Phadkay 15:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ I have removed several overlinks. Any more left? Vikrant Phadkay 15:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Where precisely, are the underlinks in the footnotes? Vikrant Phadkay 15:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All the access dates in the footnotes need linking. After a quick browse, I spotted at least four words that shouldn't be linked, eg. radio. Wikilinks should only be made if they are relevant to the context, and a word only needs to be wikilinked once within each section. I would still like to see the article copy-editted by a third-party, eg. "The sequence at Miami International Airport was partly shot at the Dunsfold Aerodrome in Surrey, with some footage captured at Prague and Miami airports with the first and second units of the film taking some 10 weeks to shoot the entire sequence." Epbr123 16:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am very much that third-party. Vikrant Phadkay 15:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Most lines have been copy-edited. If there is more, please tell me the specific sections. Vikrant Phadkay 15:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Overlinks have been removed; where is the word radio, by the way? Vikrant Phadkay 15:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ All dates in the references have been linked. Vikrant Phadkay 15:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose As mentioned in the previous FAC, some of the information is still cited by SuperHeroHype.com, which is not a particularly reliable source. The article could also go with a general copy edit by someone who hasn't contributed to the article already. - • The Giant Puffin •  19:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * SHH is a very reliable news source. In fact, all sources are reliable if it's an interview straight from someone's mouth. Alientraveller 19:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Where exactly is copy-editing needed? It has been done in a few places. Please be specific. Vikrant Phadkay 16:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Copy editing has been done all over the article. Vikrant Phadkay 15:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Very very weak oppose . The images Image:GunBarrelPhoto.jpg and Image:CasinoRoyalePhoto.jpg need better fair use rationales. Dalejenkins 08:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ The rationales have been cleaned up. Vikrant Phadkay 16:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, refs 3 and 24 are the same. They should be merged as 1. Dalejenkins 11:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ The references have been integrated. Vikrant Phadkay 16:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK then, a SUPER STRONG SUPPORT from me! Dalejenkins 17:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Do we need for 4 minor sections under "Release"? Could these be better summarized into just one plain section? Group content by paragraphs, instead of separating them into subsections which only consist about about 1 paragraph worth of information. 15:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have cleaned up and merged the subsections. Vikrant Phadkay 16:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Continued - I apologize for my broken reviews, I have a lot on my plate right now, both in the Wiki-world and the real one. The "Release" section looks better. Question: I thought it was decided that the "map" image shouldn't be in the filming section since they didn't really film in all the locations that the movie actually takes place?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ The image has no place suitable, so it's out. What does "a lot on my plate right now, both in the Wiki-world and the real one" mean by the way? Vikrant Phadkay 16:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. I've moved the "soundtrack" info as it's labeled as if it's talking about the actual album that was released, but really discussing the music in general. I moved it to the "Production" section, under "Music" and move the line about the release to the end, since that came last. As for what I said, I meant that I have several projects on Wiki I'm working on at the same time, plus I have school and work full time, so I haven't been able to sit down and read the entire article word-for-word yet. My reviews so far are based on what catches my eye as I scan the page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the OR line, and merged the soundtrack release line. Vikrant Phadkay 16:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support since the article has been recently copyedited, TOC has been taken care of, and the referencing is pristine. Cliff smith 16:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support seems to be a well-written stable article --Hadseys 15:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Requirement for professional standard of formatting (overlinking) and MOS breach: why "terrorist", "boycott", "United Kingdom", "2006", "castrate", and many more, some more than once?
 * ✅ By the way, dates including 2006 need to be linked everywhere. Vikrant Phadkay 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Em dashes not normally spaced, says MOS. Why here?
 * ✅ All is well now. Vikrant Phadkay 17:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * MOS breach in failure to convert units into normal-speak.
 * What do you mean by this line? Vikrant Phadkay 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Utilised"—Do everyone a favour and make it just "used"?
 * Is there any problem in having better prose? Vikrant Phadkay 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "the previous record being six rolls set by Top Gear"—funny one.
 * ✅ Cut it Vikrant Phadkay 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

These are samples only. Tony 11:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Point out all flaws; saying "samples only" will be of no use otherwise. Vikrant Phadkay 17:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.