Talk:Felix Leiter/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TeacherA (talk · contribs) 02:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is potentially confusing. Suggest considering a brief composite biography of what is known about the man. It shouldn't be a list of his films only.

Such a re-write may take a while so I will re-visit in 14-21 days at most. TeacherA (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No re-write is needed. The article follows exactly the same format as the GA-standard M (James Bond). A "composite biography" (apart from falling towards WP:INUNIVERSE) would be almost impossible as the books and films differ wildly about the character, contradicting each other—and themselves. As to the "list of films", please see the very first section entitled "Novels", which deals solely with that subject. I look forward to the rest of the review shortly—without any need for structural changes to the article. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• The nominator is correct about this. The outline of the character in the novels—especially the Fleming ones—is as close as you will get to a biography. The depiction of the character in the films are just interpretations of the literary character, and sometimes contradictory i.e. he was a young agent like Bond in Dr No and Thunderball, and a seasoned agent well past his prime in Goldfnger; he gets his leg chewed off in Licence to Kill but has it back in Casino Royale which was based on the first Bond novel. It doesn't help that many of the novels were filmed out of order. This is the standard approach on the Bond articles: the novels present the most cohesive version so they are covered first, with Fleming being canon and the continuation novels generally trying to be consistent with Fleming, and then the various depictions in all other media are covered. Betty Logan (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Betty Logan's explanation is very good. So see if you can incorporate it into the article. This will truly make it "good". You are not far from it. See if you can find commentary or articles like what Betty Logan said, as original research and theories written by Wikipedians are not allowed. You can do it! 90% of the work is already done. Don't disappoint me. You can really do it. TeacherA (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I have made a comment at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#TeacherA regarding this rather bizzare approach on this and your other review as I am concerned at the approach you are taking. - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've made comments in that link that this article is 95% to GA. However, because of protests and refusal to improve the text, I will give in to grade inflation and pass it as a GA.

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of June 1, 2011, compares against the six good article criteria:

   1. Well written?: Needs a little copy editing and would encourage continued improvement but I deem a pass, barely.
   2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited to WP:RS sources. Passes here.
   3. Broad in coverage?: Good enough.
   4. Neutral point of view?: Neutral tone throughout, no issues here. Passes here.
   5. Article stability? Upon inspection of article edit history and talk page, no outstanding issues with stability. Passes here.
   6. Images?: Few images used in article and no problems, little to evaluate. Would be better if the composite photo in the infobox were free use.  This could happen by getting photos of the actors.  This would be representative since none of the current composite photos have actors with face changing make-up, like the Hulk or Captain America.  Passes here (but encourage improvement to free use).

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. Keep at it, though. TeacherA (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous and beyond a joke. If a proper reviewer wants to run their eye over this article and offer grown-up suggestions as to improvements or areas which need to be copy-edited, I'll be glad to oblige. - SchroCat (^ • @) 04:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Formatting

I had a strangely difficult time figuring out a layout issue. The bits that run like this:

---

Featured in

• The Living Daylights (1987)

Jeffrey Wright: 2006 & 2008

---

seemed to me to say that Wright was featured in The Living Daylights, which is wrong. The films closest to the heading belong to the preceding section.

Have you considered using a {{sidebox}} or other formatting arrangement to make the relationship clearer? Then it would look something like this:

---

Jeffrey Wright: 2006 & 2008

Casino Royale rebooted the franchise, which allowed Leiter to re-appear and he and Bond meet for the first time in the film. Early script drafts for Quantum of Solace gave Wright a larger role, but his screen time was restricted by on-set rewrites.

---

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

As I've mentioned above, this follows the same formatting as the M (James Bond) article, which is to say:

Title (Actors name)

Description

Films in which said actor appeared.

I considered using a sidebox (as per the M article use), but with each actor generally appearing only once in the series, the formatting doesn't work. Either way, the "Featured in" section doesn't appear in the M article either. I should also note that on my screen setting (which isn't unusual), the sidebox you show is already dropping into the section below, which means that by the time we read about Wright, we're probably only on the sidebox for Hedison or Terry! - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You are aware that there is no requirement whatsoever that the formatting match any other article?

You could use {{-}} to make sure that sections don't overlap. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I have tweaked to ensure that confusion reigns no more. I know there is no need for consistency, but why not try and apply some where we can? It seems a sensible way to approach an encyclopaedia. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you think about indenting the lists (just one colon's worth)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)