Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/GoldenEye/archive4


 * 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 05:18, 20 December 2008.

GoldenEye
Nominator: User:Diaa abdelmoneim (talk)

This article has undergone significant upgrading and reviewing. After satisfying two peer reviews I think this Article really deserves to be FA. It has good sources, a good structure and meets the FA criteria. I'm eagerly awaiting your comments as this James Bond movie is probably the best of all James Bond films and is a core article. I'm ready to make it better and better and just need someone to tell me what's missing. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your interest in improving the article, but it appears you haven't followed the featured article candidate instructions in consulting significant contributors to the article prior to nominating it for FAC. I have asked User:The Giant Puffin, a principle contributor who still edits the article, to comment here. Maralia (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still unsure on whether this article can really gain FA status and hold it. Several improvements suggested in the past have not been met. A final and comprehensive copy-edit should probably be done again. The suggestion in /archive3 that cinematic style be covered in more depth does not seem to have been fulfilled. I did previously look in to meeting the suggestion of using scholarly sources, but with little success. If this is a viable action to take now, it should probably be done. I'm glad peer reviews have been done. Evidently that department is in a better state than at the time of the last FAC. Generally, this article is of a high standard. Its been constantly improved over the past two years, and it should be close to FA status. Although not completely relevant, if this FAC does not succeed, I'd suggest submitting GoldenEye for an A-class rating. -  • The Giant Puffin •  23:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -
 * http://www.ianflemingfoundation.org/mkkbb/guide/timothydalton/ deadlinks
 * http://movies.sympatico.msn.ca/features/ArticleNormanWilner.aspx?cp-documentid=436189 deadlinks
 * ✅ added for both the archived version--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.mi6.co.uk/mi6.php3
 * See MI6.co.uk Alientraveller (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.hmss.com/
 * The New York Times mentions this as a source here ("A serious approach to the subject of Bond is taken by a Web magazine, Her Majesty's Secret Servant. It includes articles, interviews and some intellectual content.") Steve  T • C 22:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've just noticed that this article is dated 1997. It appears to be the same site, if the Wayback Machine is to be believed, but I don't know if that's too distant for determining its reliability. There's a 2001 article in the Daily Herald here (paysite), if that helps. Steve  T • C 22:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.leisuresuit.net/Webzine/
 * http://notcoming.com/reviews/goldeneye/
 * http://www.tanks4hire.co.uk/T55armouredmilitarytank.html
 * http://www.swanagerailway.co.uk/news298.htm
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20060204162919/http://www.jamesbond.com/bond20/newsflash/newsflash_27.php
 * http://www.jamesbondmm.co.uk/
 * http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/
 * http://www.filmtracks.com/
 * http://commanderbond.net/cw.cgi?action=Story&SID=2744
 * One of the best Bond sites, recommended in James Chapman's 2006 edition of Cultural History of the Bond films. Alientraveller (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.zoonami.com/briefing/2004-09-02.php
 * Current ref 16 (MacDonald, Jay..) is lacking a publisher.
 * Current ref 18 (Ashton, Richard...) is lacking a publisher
 * Current ref 21 (Birren, Nick) requires registration and this should be noted.
 * Current ref 23 (Reg Seeton...) gives a link that goes to what is referenced in current ref 24 (Stax...).
 * Double check that all your authors are given in last name first format, a few are not. You need consistency in your reference formats.
 * added author= in all
 * Current ref 25 (Two profiles..) does not give enough information for the source to be found, which is required under WP:V.
 * Current ref 26 (Pearson, John...) is lacking a page number
 * Current ref 29 (Comentale, Edward...) is lacking a title and a page number.
 * Current ref 33 (Pearce...) is lacking a page number.
 * Why does current ref 34 (Peter Aston...) have a last access date when there is no link in the reference? Same for current ref 35 (Michael G. Wilson...)
 * Current ref 45 (Amazing Bond stunt...) is lacking a publisher.
 * Current ref 47 (Opening...) is lacking a publisher
 * Current ref 51 (Kinney, ..) is lacking a page number and date of publication . ISBN would be nice also.
 * Magazines and newspaper titles should be in italics. Please double check all your references.
 * Current ref 61 (GoldenEye premiere...) is lacking a publisher
 * Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals, even when the original is. (Example, see current ref 81 Turan..)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Um... can you remove those strike throughs? At FAC we wait for the person who left the comments to strike through issues when they feel they are addressed. Also, we don't use the fancy templated graphic "dones" as there is a limit on the number of templates that can be on a page, and FAC can hit that limit if everyone used those templates. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * With regard to the reception section, the article states that "The critical reception of the film was mostly positive, with the film review collection website Rotten Tomatoes giving it an 84% Fresh approval rating, although a similar site, Metacritic, gave it only 65%." It might be worth clarifying this by briefly explaining how each site generates its percentages. They do so in a different manner, which is why you see the discrepancy. Rotten Tomatoes decides whether a review is positive or negative, calculating an end score based on this simple binary assessment. Metacritic is equally subjective, but assigns a rating out of 100 to a review. So if a film receives twelve reviews which are generally unfavourable but not utterly scathing, this might translate to a score of perhaps 41% at Metacritic. Rotten Tomatoes, however, would declare all these reviews negative and so the film would receive a whopping 0% score. My own preferred choice of wording is that which I used at Changeling (film), or Hancock (film), which states:"Hancock received mixed reviews from film critics. Rotten Tomatoes reported that 39% of critics gave the film a positive write-up, based on a sample of 200, with an average score of 5.4/10. At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film has received an average score of 49, based on 37 reviews."You'll note that for Goldeneye, the Rotten Tomatoes "average" score is calculated in the same manner as at Metacritic, and at 6.8/10 is much closer to that site's 65% score. All the best, Steve  T • C 22:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding File:GE-Virtual-Boy-screenshot-1.png; if any (non-free) image of a game is to be used in an article wouldn't it make more sense to have an image of the successful (critically and commercially) Nintendo 64 game to which a paragraph in the article is devoted than of a cancelled game which only garners a one line mention? Guest9999 (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.