Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/X2 (film)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

X2 (film)

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it up to Featured Article status (I've already made some improvements, but some people think it could use some more), and I will need help. Specifically, I want reviewers to list any objections they might have, such as whether the plot summary is too long, whether the cast section contains unnecessary, intricate detail, and whether the prose needs improvement. If you have any problems with the sources, please list that too. I recently improved some of the sources, so I won't think you'll have a problem with it, though.

Thanks, SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

Happy to have a look through. I don't think I've seen this one, but I may have- they all merge into one... If I come across as a little harsh, please know that I'm only trying to give you the tools to head off potential objections at FAC.

  • "changing characterizations of Beast, Angel, and Lady Deathstrike. Sentinels and the Danger Room were set to appear before being deleted because of budget concerns" None of this quite works for me. It's not clear what any of the in-universe terms mean, and I think it should be "the characterizations of".
  • "the largest production facility outside of Los Angeles in North America" Ambiguous- I think you mean "the largest North American production facility outside of Los Angeles".
    • The former is actually correct. It is referring to the Vancouver Film Studios center, which is located in Canada in British Columbia, not North America. when it says "Los Angeles in North America", that's referring to the fact that Los Angeles is in North America. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Vancouver is indeed in North America- you're conflating the United States of America with North America; the latter is a continent which includes several countries, including both North America and Canada. I doubt (though concede that I may be wrong) that the largest film production facility (and I note that it's actually ambiguous as to what you mean by "production facility" here) outside of LA is in Vancouver. Is there nothing bigger in India, for instance? Josh Milburn (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need something about the critical reception in the lead- it'd be a nice way to expand on the third paragraph, which currently looks a little short.
  • The plot section is a little long- 700 words is the top end, but I'd reserve that for particularly complex films anyway (timetravel, changed identities, dramatic irony, that kind of stuff). I'd aim for about 600 words here. Especially given the fact that you've got a heavily annotated cast list, I'm left feeling that the article comes across as a little heavy on in-universe information. I'd recommend trimming this all back as far as possible. (To that end, I'll not comment on minor grammatical issues in these sections, as you'll hopefully be reworking it somewhat anyway.) I'd be happy to take another look through once you've tirmmed it a bit. This is especially true given that a lot of your character descriptions are unsourced.
    • It was at 735 words, I've removed some unneeded words, and it's now at 713 words. There is an exception to the 700 word rule when the plot is complex, which I believe is the case here, but even so, I'm only 13 words above 700.
      • I'm not sure the plot is that complex, and I again note that you have a lot of in-universe information in the cast section. The in-universe/real-world balance feels a little off, and I think that's something (though not necessarily the only thing) which would stop me from supporting at FAC at this time. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving onto the prose in the cast section, I'm not keen on your heavy use of "also".
  • The fact Artie is the only character not to receive a brief description is a little odd.
  • "and onset rewrites" You mean on-set; onset means something else
  • "were to have cameos for the scene" in the scene, surely?
  • "were to have appearances during the Dark Cerebro sequence" I'm not clear what is meant by this.
    • It's refers to a scene in the film where Cerebro is cloned with Dark Cerebro. That's what it means. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • This has not been introduced. You can't expect that kind of knowledge from readers. That said, is this all information which has to be included? There's a lot of info about which characters appeared in passing and which didn't, seemingly at the expense of more important real-world information about filming, casting, themes and messages... Josh Milburn (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dr. Hank McCoy transforming into his notable blue fur" How about something like "Dr. Hank McCoy, Beast's more human form, transforming to show Beast's characteristic blue fur"
  • Be aware of MOS:LQ- you seem to be in violation in a couple of places
    • You haven't specified where I "seem to be in violation", if you're referring to this sentence: Singer finds great difficulty in adapting all this stuff into a two and a half hour long movie". I will note that I have changed "finds" to "[found]" and put the period inside the parentheses. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The guideline explains that "[w]here the quotation is a single word or fragment, terminal punctuation should be placed outside". You seem to be contrary to this in a number of places. "demanding "mutant freedom now." At", "half hour long movie."[6]", "happen."[19] Producer", and "warmongering and terrorism,"[18] citing" jump out at me as not following this requirement- there may be others. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Angel and Beast appeared in early drafts, but were deleted because there were too many characters.[10] Dr. Hank McCoy, however, can be seen on a television interview in one scene. Beast's appearance was to resemble Jim Lee's 1991 artwork of the character in the series X-Men: Legacy.[10]" I feel this is repeating what has already been discussed, but I feel it belongs here a little more.
    • I don't quite agree, it's being informative to readers on what Beast might have looked like if he was included. It's not repeating that he was deleted, it's just explaining what he would have looked like. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that the fact that Beast might have been included but wasn't is actually a fairly trivial detail in the grand scheme of things, I'm not convinced it needs to be discussed twice, if it needs to be discussed at all. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "efforts of Angel" I don't know what this means
  • "a character who appeared in God Loves, Man Kills as Stryker's personal assistant/assassin" This is the first mention of the book outside the lead which, given its apparent significance, seems to be a mistake
  • "snow was produced in Kananaskis, Alberta" was produced? Do you mean "fell"?
  • "Cinematographer Newton Thomas Sigel and two stunt drivers nearly died when filming the scene in which Pyro has a dispute with police officers.[6]" I'd like to hear more. The production section generally is very light.
  • In "Design and effects", it's sometimes feels like you're just listing facts. It doesn't flow so well.
  • "with at a total of $407,711,549" ??
  • "and was the sixth highest of 2003," Film generally, I assume, rather than film based on a comic
  • "Empire called X2" Empire should be italicised, but try to avoid personifying publications
  • Does the video game need its own section? Would it not be better discussed exclusively in the box office section?
  • I really dislike the bold and italics in your track listing- it's very confusing. There's a way to add annotations using the track listing template
  • The Home media section is a little bit detailed- we don't really need a list of extra features. I also note that you repeat info about the novelisation.
    • I've trimmed it.
  • What is your Cumming source? Dyas?
  • How about "The Second Uncanny Issue"? I'm not clear what this is.
  • Volume and issue for Chris Hewitt (March 28, 2003). "The X Factor". Empire. p. 76.?
  • You're inconsistent in how you list author names in the references- inconsistent reference formatting is a good example of something you should try to weed out before FAC
  • Amazon is not a good source
  • Page for your Stephen Hunter source?
  • You seem to be fairly reliant on web sources; has the film received any academic analysis? I'd guess so.
    • I don't really see it as a problem, but I'll try to look for some. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not necessarily an issue, but it does raise the question as to whether important material has been missed. Some quick Google searching suggests that there is discussion in the usual kinds of academic work, but it also threw up this book, which (at first glance, I've certainly not looked closely) might be very useful to expand the production discussion. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sold on your non-free image use. The album cover definitely needs to go, and the Nightcrawler/Danger Room images are questionable at best.
    • I've removed the album cover; however I have kept the other images as it clearly meets the criteria for demonstrating a special effect, which goes along with the paragraph. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not convinced. You've got pretty limited discussion of the special effects at this time, and the rationales are not exactly stellar. I'm not going to say anything more about it at this time, but I would expect (at least) a critical comment on the issue if you were to nominate the article at FAC at this time. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, it feels like you're a bit heavy on in-universe information and a bit light on production information. It's not at all a bad article, but I think there's a little way to go before it's FAC ready. I hope my comments here will help you in pushing it that bit further. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tintor2 (talk) 01
59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Advertising my own peer review request by the way :D

  • Some references like "X2 DVD Release Date DVDs ReleaseDates, Retrieved August 29, 2015." require formatting (title, url). I'm pretty sure they'll ask for that in the FA nominations
  • The section Sequel is unsourced.
  • Home media also feels pretty small. I would recommend a combination but I'm not too sure.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/X2_(film)/archive1&oldid=694926364"