Talk:Wanted (2008 film)/GA1

Wanted (2008 film) GA Review

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

GA Review, Part 1

Here are my first round of comments. I'll try to finish it ASAP. Please address each one individually, line by line, and I'll cross them out as we go. Good luck!

Plot:

• You mention that they are looking for Pekwarsky, but never say why or how his name came up. Can you briefly include that?
• "Similar to the comic, the film ends as Gibson turns to the camera and..." Can you place a citation for this after "Similar to the comic"? Even if its just the comic itself, this should have a source.

Casting:

• This section needs some serious cleaning up. The main thing is it lacks consistency. The McAvoy post is really long, whereas the rest are really brief. Also, McAvoy's line talks about how he was cast, whereas most others are just about the characters. I'd suggest you move the stuff about how McAvoy and the others (Jolie, Khabensky, wheover else) were cast and add that to a paragraph in the Production section focusing specifically on the casting of the film. Then, rewrite this section so it's just one sentence for each character about who that character is in the film, with nothing about the actors (except their names, like you already have them).
• Also, get rid of the POV in some of these sentences. Words like "meek," "charismatic," etc are POV. And make sure you avoid sentence fragments like "'Breaks bad habits' by violently beating them." Change a sentence like that to something like "An assassin who says he 'breaks bad habits' by violently beating people." or something like that.

Production:

• The quote at the end of the first paragraph is a bit long, but I think it's worth including rather than breaking part of it into the prose of the article, so I broke it out into a pull quote. Let me know what you think.
• "Haas and Brandt returned to even out the character of Wesley Gibson" "even out" is not very encyclopedic wording. Can you revise it to specify what exactly you mean?
• "The script was also rewritten by screenwriter Ruby Aduana to include the role of Fox for actress Angelina Jolie." The source you cite here says nothing about Ruby Aduana, or anyone for that matter, being hired to write that part for Jolie. Can you fix the source. And also, can you include why they wrote it specifically for Jolie? Did one of the filmmakers want her, or did she herself express interest in the movie, or how'd that happen? Also, this makes it sound like Fox wasn't in the comic, but that this part was written specifically for Jolie. Is this right, or did they just change up the character to make it more appropriate for Jolie?
• "I wanted them to have those powers and then just wear those costumes for the initiation, but just for one panel. And then I forgot. I’d have liked [the filmmakers] to keep the supervillain mythos. That’s one thing I’m kind of sad they didn’t keep, ’cause I really liked that, the idea that supervillains and heroes did exist at one point and they’re all gone now." This sentence is a bit long. Could you break the first half of it out and make it a sentence in the prose of the article? I'd suggest you only keep the part of the quote after "That's one thing I'm kind of sad..." and paraphrase the rest.
• "Wanted creator Mark Millar saw previsualized footage for the film and said the footage had raised his expectations for the film adaptation." Since the whole paragraph previous to this one deals with Millar's thoughts and responses to the movie, this sentence really belongs BEFORE that paragraph, so it will be chronological. Could you move it?
• "... were shot in Chicago on May 17 and 18..." I don't think the exact, specific days that this was shot are relevant enough to be included in the article. Could you just say "were shot in Chicago over two days..."?
• The websites for Sources #17 and #18 has changed. It redirects to the new page, but the redirect link won't be there forever. Can you switch it with the real link?
• "The film originally had both an alternate opening and an alternate ending." Some explanation of what those alternate openings and endings are, and/or how different they are from the original film, is needed. Could also use some info on why they were changed for the final film, if that info is available.
  • I don't see anything in that source about an alternate ending. This source mentions an alternate opening, but no ending. Are you sure there was an alternate ending? If not, drop the mention of one, and use this second source as the alternate for the opening instead. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The audio interview in the first source(transcripts also exist) does talks about the ending (starts at 7:40). igordebraga ≠ 15:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

More coming soon. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review, Part 2

Release and reception:

• "...with the consensus that the film "is a fast-paced, crackling thrill ride tailor-made for the Summer audience."" Again, if you include even a portion of the quote, you have to mention who specifically said it.
  • Rotten Tomatoes itself said this.
• This section could use a bit of information about the Marketing of the film, if any such info is available? Do you know?
  • Couldn't, but isn't much necessary.
• Is there any more info that can go into the Casting section? Like how Morgan Freeman was cast, for example? Or any of these other supporting actor? (Thomas Kretschmann, Terrance Stamp?)
  • Didn't find in the internet about Freeman and Stamp, but tried to put info on many other actors. igordebraga ≠ 23:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • This is an improvement, and the new Casting section improves the overall structuring of the story, so please keep it in. Also, I changed the wording a bit with Common. The biggest thing I did was remove the reference that he felt the character and Common had a lot in common (no pun intended), because after watching the video, he seems to think there are a lot of differences between his characters, not common attributes. IF you object to this change, you can put it back in, but make sure you specify what exactly you feel Common is saying he has in common with the character. Otherwise, this will be ready for GA. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I must have misheard it, no problem. igordebraga ≠ 15:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

--Hunter Kahn (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Plot

• I'm very sorry, but I've recently looked at WP:FILMPLOT and realized that this article doesn't meet its qualifications because the plot summary is too long. According to this guideline, a plot summary should be between 400 and 700 words and not exceed 900 words, and the Wanted plot summary is about 930 words. I know this is a pain since we're very close to being done with this article, but could you please try to shorten the plot summary to at least 700 words or less? I won't fault you if it's slightly over 700, but at the same time it really won't be proficient according to this guidelines to simply hack off 30 words and call it a day. I'd suggest you read this brief WP:FILMPLOT for advice on how to properly do a plot summary, then just go through and shorten it a bit. Again, sorry about this. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Reduced to exactly 900 words (considering Iron Man is a GA with a 897-word plot summary, must be enough), but you can do a copy-edit of it if some parts feel badly written. igordebraga ≠ 15:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the film. It's not really that complicated; the plot can probably be boiled down further. I think the 700 word limit should be mandatory, as then it forces editors to really cut out the unnecessary parts from the plot. To shorten the plot, I suggest writing it from scratch, perhaps starting with just bullet points so that you don't get bogged down in the details. The Iron Man plot can certainly be shortened further, too. Gary King (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A good article is:

1. Well-written: Prose is good, MOS is good.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Sources are good, no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage: Covers main aspects, no unneeded detail.
4. Neutral: Yes.
5. Stable: Yes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.