| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because per WP:GT requirements, this has to be peer reviewed per bla bla bla. Read it here at criterion 3.c. This coincides with an upcoming X-Men films Good topic candidacy. I have recently improved the articles, with X-Men: First Class written in collaboration with Jhenderson777. There will definitely be more content as the film's release gets closer. Wildroot (talk) 07:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
For right now this is just a start class. I corrected myself on changing it to B class so quickly although so far the article is doing pretty good so far for reaching it's potential for B-Class. I am up for any opinions on how to make this start class article to at least a B class in the future. Although it's definitely not ready for good article or featured article status yet since it's not released I am willing to try to make it stay to that potential. ;) − Jhenderson 777 20:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: PR is meant for articles approaching GA or FA rather than start-class articles. However, here are a few comments and suggestions:
- The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article. The existing lead is only three sentences long and is not a true summary. It says nothing about the "Premise", and "Casting" sections, for example. I imagine you are planning to rewrite the lead when the other substantive additions are completed, but I don't know this for sure. My rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections and not to include anything important in the lead that is not developed in the main text.
- "Penn compared the idea to the comic book series X-Men: First Class,[30] and Josh Schwartz was writing the screenplay in May 2008." - Are the two independent clauses that form this sentence logically connected?
- "Schwartz's writing assignment also included the possibility of directing of X-Men: First Class,[32] but Fox approached Bryan Singer... ". - Should this be 20th Century Fox on first use in the main text?
- My impression is that a reader unfamiliar with the many other films mentioned in the text will be lost. There are a lot of vague references such as "spin-off", "pretty interesting idea", "not what you'd expect", "elements", "a new direction with a fresh, young cast", and so on, but nothing specific. The unexplained allusions to other films and to comic books will mean nothing to readers who haven't seen those films and read the comic books. Specific examples of what the generalizations allude to are essential to improving the article.
- What makes Bleeding Cool a reliable source per WP:RS? It's a blog.
- What makes Ain't It Cool reliable?
- Do all of the other cited sources meet the WP:RS guidelines?
I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)