Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 10:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. Thank you. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"The film is written and directed by James Gunn and stars an ensemble cast featuring Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper, Michael Rooker, Karen Gillan, Pom Klementieff, Elizabeth Debicki, Chris Sullivan, Sean Gunn, Sylvester Stallone, and Kurt Russell." — Can be rephrased as "Written and directed by James Gunn, the film stars an ensemble cast featuring Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper, Michael Rooker, Karen Gillan, Pom Klementieff, Elizabeth Debicki, Chris Sullivan, Sean Gunn, Sylvester Stallone, and Kurt Russell."
Wikilink "Principal photography".

Plot

Just one: "who is discussing several experiences on Earth" can be tweaked as "who is discussing his experiences on Earth" as Stan Lee seems to be doing just that.

I'll provide some more comments tomorrow.....

Done: Although I undid your good faith edit. Writing was a critical part of this stage of filmmaking so its best to keep them together and to be consistent with other articles in this good topic.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these Triiiple. Speaking more to his revert of the subsection level, "Writing" isn't it's own step to the production process. It is part of development (and sometimes pre-production) so it is best to keep it as a subsection to either of those (in our case development), similar to how "Visual effects" is a subsection to "Post-production". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

"after his makeup test found it too "abrasive"" — Shouldn't it be "after his makeup test was found to be too "abrasive""?
", with writer/director James Gunn intending" — Mentioning him as writer and director in the lead would do.
"Sean Gunn provided on-set reference for adolescent Groot in the post-credit sequence." — A query: you mean he was a stand-in for the character? You can make it more clearer for those who might not get it at first glance.
"Feige stated that the relationship between Rocket and Groot has changed" — You can say their roles are reversed. Make it your own interpretation. Just a suggestion though.
"Before the release of Vol. 2, Rooker spent time on the set of Avengers: Infinity War to counteract" — Add the year of release for Infinity War.
"An adopted daughter of Thanos" — Under Gillian's section, delink Thanos. Same for Saldana's section. You've already done that for the plot.
"A member of the Guardians with empathic powers who lives with Ego" — I see you've mentioned Mantis as a "naïve empath servant" in the plot. Link empathy in the plot and delink it from the cast section.
Add the year of release for Civil War and Ragnarok.
"Lee filmed several different versions of the scene, including an alternative where he references his role in Deadpool," — Delink Deadpool. You've linked it before.

Production

"clarify for fans that the character would not be seen in either Avengers film." — Can be rephrased as "clarify for fans that the character would not be seen in either of the Avengers' films."
"in favor of The Dark Tower." — Add the year of release for The Dark Tower.
"He eventually met with Red, whom he had a positive experience with working on The Legend of Tarzan, and they introduced him to an early prototype for the Weapon 8K." — Red as in the employees/employers/management personnel in the camera company? Just clarifying.
"after pre-production on Spider-Man: Homecoming began" — Add the year of release for Spider-Man: Homecoming.
"Lola referenced Russell's performance in Used Cars," — Add the year of release for Used Cars.
"as well as a new eye rig, which came from a rig used for the character Gnarlack from Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them." — Add the year of release for Fantastic Beasts.

Release

Jacob Hall's review borders on WP:QUOTEFARM. Do trim it a bit/interpret it in your own words a bit.
"The teaser trailer had 81 million views in 24 hours" — "The teaser trailer received 81 million views in 24 hours" sounds more appropriate IMO.
If NPD VideoScan data is related to The NPD Group, link it to them.

Reception

Try to add a short summary of the pros and cons that most critics find in common before the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores.
I see a lot of "called the film/it" or "calling the film/it". Do try to add variety to the words, like "described/describing" for instance, and other similar synonyms.

Favre1fan93 and TriiipleThreat, on the whole, the article has improved from the first review IMO. The sources look good too. Address these comments and the article will be promoted. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssven2: Thanks for taking the time to review this article, I’ll start going through this tomorrow if nobody else gets to it first.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Favre1fan93 and TriiipleThreat, fate has made me review ‘’GOTG’’ 1 and 2, and both are GA2s. :-) — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 13:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssven2:

Done I made all the requested changes except for short reception summary. Reason being they tend to be magnet for edit warring and OR, which is why we omit them in the all the articles in this topic. Besides we quote the RT consensus, which serves the same purpose. Again, thank you for your time and effort.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, how about Hijiri's query, TriiipleThreat? — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The info is general character descriptions known from the the events of the previous film, and adjusted slightly from events of this film if need be. I don't see this as an issue, or WP:OR because it is info from the primary sources: the film's themselves. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't look like one of my concerns from the last review (unsourced and potentially inaccurate info in the cast section) have not been addressed. I was also not explicit last time, but I really feel like, given how secretive Marvel were about the plot and roles of various characters therein was, a lot of the information we attribute to pre-release interviews and the like might be outdated or contain SYNTHesis of what we "know" to be accurate from watching the final film with semi-accurate, semi-deliberatelymisleading pre-release materials: it seems like a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of NOR to be selectively cherry-picking that content that wasn't later found to be definitely inaccurate from sources that definitely contain inaccurate content. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
Pass or Fail:

Thank you for addressing them, Favre1fan93 and TriiipleThreat. Congratulations, the article has passed. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment "A. Has an appropriate reference section: B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: " is meaningless when a significant amount of the information is not supported by the sources: in search for vengeance against Thanos for his family's slaughter is not supported by the sources, and is not even mentioned anywhere in the film. It is dropped as a jokey line at the end of the previous film, but is a plot-hole there since they changed that detail of the character's bio from the comics. @Ssven2: ~~You thanked me for my above comment, but you seem to have subsequently ignored it.~~ Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. You thanked me for my comment, asked the nominator about it, and when you were presented with a somewhat dismissive non-answer that claimed it's not OR because it's info from the primary source (it's actually synthesized together from primary sources that contradict each other), you just accepted that and passed anyway. You should know that now, whenever I or anyone else tries to propose a change to the article to address these and similar issues, we will likely have to deal with the claim that "it passed the GA review".[1] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]