Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/GoldenEye/archive4

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 [1].

GoldenEye

edit

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)#Critical reception, or Hancock (film)#Reception, 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/GoldenEye/archive4&oldid=1141923453"