Talk:Iron Man 3/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Corvoe (talk · contribs) 05:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct:

• Plot could use a little copy-editing ("When Stark Industries security chief Happy Hogan is badly injured in one such attack..." doesn't sound very encyclopedic). In "Development", the part "and in March it was announced that he would have as a co-writer Drew Pearce" definitely needs to be rewritten. Throughout the article, people are referred to by their full name after having it already said in that section (particularly in "Writing", "Filming", In "Writing", "Both the opening and the ending of the film were reworked in various ways." should be a new paragraph. In filming, "The Port of Wilmington was used for oil tanker in the climactic battle" doesn't make any sense, and I have no idea what that sentence means. In "Post-production", "through the film's wrap" should be "through the end of filming". "Iron Man is 6″5′." is also wrong, as that means 6 inches 5 feet. Corvoe (speak to me) 05:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Done: Plot may need some more copy editing, but I believe I fixed everything else. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

• I take issue with "It is the sequel to 2008's Iron Man and 2010's Iron Man 2, and the seventh installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, being the first major release in the franchise since the crossover film The Avengers." I would remove the bit about the Avengers. It makes it feel cluttered. Further, I think the information from this sentence, "Shane Black directed a screenplay he co-wrote with Drew Pearce, which uses concepts from the "Extremis" story arc by Warren Ellis", should be mentioned earlier, as it's more important than the fact that it features "the Marvel Comics character Iron Man" and was "produced by Marvel Studios and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures." This information is too much for the lead, and the fact that it features Iron Man can be easily deduced. Corvoe (speak to me) 05:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Partially done: Removed the Avengers bit, but let the rest as is, as that is the layout used on all other MCU films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a valid reason. I hadn't checked other MCU films. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

• The sources themselves are fine, but some notable information from them is missing. The source used for DMG in the infobox states that the film is a Chinese co-production, but the lead calls it "American" and the United States are the only production company listed. This should be fixed. The source after DMG Entertainment should be removed from the infobox and used in prose, and the film's Le Grand Rex premiere date can be completely removed in order to minimize the infobox citations. Lastly, the sources for the "Accolades" section don't need their own column: just put the source after the name of the award show. Corvoe (speak to me) 05:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

All infobox requests completed, as well as fixing the Chinese issue. I did not touch the "Accolades" as I believe this as been an issue on the page, with favor going towards a separate ref column. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say it's worth opening a discussion about that. It's not visually appealing and it's easy to miss the source. Most accolade pages feature the format I was discussing, so I don't see why this one shouldn't do the same. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research:

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

• Brief edit war appears to have ended, no other notable edit wars. Corvoe (speak to me) 05:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

• The cast section could use photos of the primary cast (Downey, Paltrow, Kingsley, Pearce and Cheadle). The photo captions throughout shouldn't have periods at the end. Corvoe (speak to me) 05:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Question: Why shouldn't the captions have periods? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for that one, I misinterpreted MOS:CAPTION. Only the "Previsualtion" caption shouldn't have one, since it isn't a full sentence. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Pass/Fail:

• Very well done article! Congratulations to all who worked on it, good job! A little more work (particularly on grammar) and I'm sure this will be ready for an FA nomination. Corvoe (speak to me) 05:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)