Talk:Venom (2018 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Freeknowledgecreator (talk · contribs) 02:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I am willing to review the article. Right now, it seems to me that the article does meet the good article criteria, but I will not be passing the article immediately or rubber-stamping it. It's appropriate to leave some time for discussion first. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

1. The first good article criterion is that an article be well-written. I think the article meets this criterion. I can think of only minor criticisms.

In the sentence reading, "Pinkner and Rosenberg were told that Spider-Man could not be in Venom before they made their initial pitch for the film, and took the approach of trying to stay faithful to the spirit of the comics even if certain elements had to be changed such as having Brock cross a moral line in his journalism which the character does in his comic book origin story", I would have added a comma after "changed".

I think the sentence reading, "Fleischer wanted Venom to stand out compared to other comic book-based films, and felt tonally that it would not remind viewers of the lighter MCU or the somber DC Extended Universe", would make better sense if "tonally" and "that" switched places.

I think the sentence reading, "The opening of the film went through several iterations, but Fleischer always wanted it to "start with a bang" which led to a spaceship crash in the opening scene", would benefit from a comma after ' start with a bang '.

Like a number of other sentences in the article, the sentence reading, " Due to the differences in the character's facial design from comic-to-comic, and even panel-to-panel, the designers 'distilled the essential elements' into a design that could be photorealistic " employs a somewhat informal style of English. This isn't a problem, per se. However, although there could be legitimate differences of opinion about how a sentence of that kind should be written, my view is that it would read slightly better if "from" were removed from before "comic-to-comic." The "comic-to-comic" part stands by itself and surely doesn't need "from" to make its meaning clearer.

The grammar of the sentence stating, " A teaser for the film was released in February 2018, which Dani Di Placido of Forbes called 'comically underwhelming' " doesn't seem correct. It could be corrected by rewriting the sentence somewhat, for example as, " A teaser for the film, which Dani Di Placido of Forbes called 'comically underwhelming', was released in February 2018. "

One sentence starts, "He was particularly positive of the film's differences from other Marvel films..." Would "about" make better sense than "of"?

One sentence starts, "Rozsa was especially positive that the film did not take itself too seriously..." I might have written that instead as "Rozsa especially liked that the film did not take itself too seriously..." Readers will presumably understand what "especially positive" is intended to mean, but the term is potentially ambiguous - it could be used to express certainty that something is the case rather than approval of it.

"Gardner soon noticed fan art depicting Brock and Venom as a couple appearing across social media sites, and acknowledged that there were several moments throughout the film that implied such a relationship such as Venom deciding to turn against his species because of his time spent with Brock and deciding to French kiss Brock when it is transferring from Weying's body to Brock's" - this is another case where added punctuation would help (another comma after "such a relationship").

Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

2. The second criterion is that an article be "Verifiable with no original research", which includes containing no "copyright violations nor plagiarism." I don't think there is any obvious copyright violation or plagiarism. However, this sort of thing isn't always obvious. Potentially there might be something that isn't apparent to me. I understand that articles like this have been subject to disputes over alleged copyright violation and plagiarism. If there is a problem like that here, then I would think that this would probably be the only real reason for not passing the article. So you are going to have to give me your own assessment of the issue. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

3. The third criterion is that an article be "Broad in its coverage". The article meets this criterion. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

4. The fourth criterion is that an article be neutral. The article is neutral.

5. The fifth criterion is that an article be stable. Looking at the article's history, it doesn't seem perfectly or absolutely stable - there has been some edit warring and conflict between editors. Of course the article is about a comic book movie, which makes of it interest to a significant number of people. It thus isn't surprising that there has been some conflict and disagreement. The level of conflict that has occurred does not seem serious enough for the article to be failed, however (unless it gets significantly worse during the course of the review...).

I'll address the remaining article criterion soon. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Adamstom.97 is apparently busy and unable to respond immediately. I can put the review on hold if necessary. Other editors are free to comment if they wish. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Freeknowledge, apologies for the delayed response. I appreciate you picking up this review, and I have addressed your points for the first criterion in the article. I have re-written much of this article several times previously and really worked to avoid quotes where possible, so I am comfortable with where it is sitting regarding the copyright issue, but of course am happy to address any specific areas if another used was concerned. I also agree that the level of instability here is not really serious enough to impact this review (this is definitely one of the least active film articles that I keep an eye on). Let me know if there is anything else that you would like me to address. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with everything you've done here. More soon. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

6. The sixth criterion is that an article be "Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio". This criterion is met. There doesn't appear to be a copyright problem with any of the images. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I intend to pass the article unless there is a copyright problem standing in the way of that. I'll spend some time checking things and then (almost certainly) will pass the article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Passed article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)