Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GA nomination failed as not everything was addressed in time, mainly the cast section and critical response. Renominate once article has improved.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 20:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Mine! Expect initial comments within a week or two. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start with the lead and infobox.....

Infobox[edit]

  • File:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 poster.jpg has an appropriate FUR
  • When content is referenced in article body, you don't need to include citations to that here per WP:INFOBOXREF
    • If you are referring to the ref for the box office, I think it is standard practice to keep that in the infobox as well for different reasons, and I don't think it is doing any harm. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • "The film began principal photography" reads rather awkwardly; try "began filming" or "Principal photography began"
  • "Gunn chose to set the sequel shortly after the first film to explore the characters' new roles as the Guardians, and to follow the storyline of Quill's father established throughout the first film—Russell was confirmed in that role in July 2016, portraying Ego, a departure from Quill's comic father" is a rather long sentence, and I recommend separating them by placing a period after "first film"
  • Budget should be added to show readers how much was invested into making the project
    • I don't think there is anything all that notable about this film's budget, it is a pretty standard budget for this sort of film. It's not like it had a small budget and has done incredibly well, or had a massive budget and only just made its money back, for which I could see an argument for this change. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure it's worth including here how much the first Guardians of the Galaxy film earned

More to come later..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

  • I know Groot's really small and (at least compared to the previous movie) mentally infantile in the beginning, but is "Baby" in "Baby Groot" really necessary when we can just say his name?
    • His name in this film is "Baby Groot", that's how he is credited and everything. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it projected a humanoid guise"..... since we're talking about Ego in human form, did you mean to say he projected?
    • The idea here is that Ego the entity projected a human form, and so the entity is an "it" but the human form is a "he". Here, it wasn't in the human form when it was doing the projecting. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ego reveals to Quill that in his travels he planted seedlings on thousands of worlds" looks like it's missing a comma after "travels", or perhaps you could go with "Ego reveals to Quill that he planted seedlings on thousands of worlds while traveling"
  • "To that end, he impregnated countless women and hired Yondu to collect the children, but killed them all when they failed to access the Celestial power"..... with this coming right after the travel bit, it incorrectly implies Ego also told Quill that he killed his other children when in fact Mantis tells him about that later on in the movie
    • Ego strongly implies it there, and then Mantis makes it explicit to the others. It's not so important for a plot summary that everything be put exactly where it took place in the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ego reveals that he killed Meredith"..... he didn't directly kill her; he gave Meredith a brain tumor that led to her death, so let's avoid misleading impressions
    • He directly gave her a brain tumor with the intention of it killing her, so I don't think we are being misleading. Similarly, it wouldn't be misleading to say a poisoner killed their victim even though they technically didn't directly murder them. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "exhibiting typical teenage behavior in the process"..... typical for what, an American teenager? Let's just say "acting like a teenager in the process"

Cast[edit]

  • No issues with File:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 by Gage Skidmore.jpg
  • While both of these links pertain to Pratt, neither of them support the character description given. I'm also not sure "ScreenRant" is the best source that can be used anyway, and it doesn't support character descriptions used for Gamora, Drax, or Rocket either.
    • Well, ScreenRant is a reliable source that is widely used, but that isn't really the point here. All of those basic character descriptions are sort-of half-inline sourced, half-from watching the films, which is the standard practice that I am aware of for film articles. I don't think anybody has found any of the descriptions overly questionable either. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FWIW, "half-inline sourced, half-from watching the films" is definitely not a common, widely accepted practice; it is at best tolerated, but should not be allowed for GA-class articles. Basic character descriptions based on this film might be acceptable, but most of these were copy-pasted from the Guardians of the Galaxy (film) article long before this film's release, and are either no longer accurate for this film, or still technically accurate but having no relevance to the plot of this film. who seeks redemption for her past crimes was accurate for the first film but is not mentioned in this one; in search for vengeance against Thanos for his family's slaughter was kinda-sorta accurate for the first film but is not followed up on in this film (Drax doesn't mention Thanos even once, if I recall; also compare who seeks to avenge his family's death at the hands of Ronan from our article on the last film); a group of alien thieves and smugglers called the Ravagers has a problem unrelated to the others, in that "the greater Ravager community" is already discussed in the preceding plot summary, which makes it poor writing that needs revision; a genetically modified raccoon could probably be reliably sourced, but the previous film just refers to him as a lower life form, while in the comics apparently it's a sore point that he is not a raccoon but a member of an intelligent alien race that happens to look like a raccoon (source here), so it's definitely not the kind of basic information that should be implicitly sourced to the film itself and not accompanied by any inline citation. And I honestly don't know why the cites are placed after the character descriptions when the entries are formatted like this: if it were Zoe Saldana as Gamora, a member of the Guardians and an orphan from an alien world who seeks redemption for her past crimes, and was trained by Thanos to be his personal assassin.[7] that would be another matter, since the character description might be WP:BLUE and the source for the whole sentence is actually the source for the claim that Saldana plays Gamora; alternatively, if we go with the current format, Zoe Saldana as Gamora:[7]
A member of the Guardians and an orphan from an alien world who seeks redemption for her past crimes. She was trained by Thanos to be his personal assassin. would work; the current formatting implies that the source is being used for the character description, and not the fact that Zaldana is playing her. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Certainly not far-fetched descriptions or anything; it just seems odd to cite so many details on the cast and characters, but not that Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Screenrant.com's Terms of Use delineates what expectations of reliability their reader's ought to have: "The website is an editorial based website providing commentary, general information in relation to film, television and related topics. Information on the site may contain slight errors or inaccuracies; the Website does not make any warranty as to the correctness or reliability of the sites content. The Website does not provide any warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy of the information. You acknowledge that such information and materials may contain inaccuracies and errors and we expressly exclude liability for any such inaccuracies or errors. Other articles and content are opinion based (or commentary) and should not be considered factual."  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  13:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the site is likely to be inaccurate, then it's not good enough for a Wikipedia entry. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • SR is a good source for its writers' opinions, and occasionally for what gossip and rumours are going around (but those shouldn't really be cited on Wikipedia anyway). Most or all of the information cited to it in this article is "true", but the main source (this one) is outdated. It's essentially a fan's interpretation of a pre-release (very pre-release -- it comes from two years before the film's release) interview with the director that only incidentally verifies the content attributed to it in a postscript that happens to mention that "Chris Pratt, Dave Bautista, Zoe Saldana, Michael Rooker, Sean Gunn and ... Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel" were set to reprise their roles as of eight months before principal photography began. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how Pratt's father dying is pertinent detail here, though it could perhaps be mentioned in his main page
    • I think this was added since the film is all about his character's two fathers. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems odd to cut off "we're starting somewhere very crazy but appropriate given where we had ended things off in the first" right before using its last word "installment".
  • The current presentation of "wasn't crazy about my part [in Vol. 2, initially]. It went a different direction than what I thought they were going to go with Drax" is incorrectly implying the brackets are part of the quote when it actually goes from "part" to "In went in a different direction". It would be better to say something like he "initially was not enthusiastic about his role in the second installment" before inserting the "different direction" bit.
    • No, the brackets are how quotes are altered to add context or clarification. See MOS:QUOTE. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • USA Today doesn't mention anything about how funny Drax is
    • A tag for a different reference was missing. Fixed. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most people's first perception of Drax [that] he's just a big, muscly brute"..... again, don't refactor quotes like that; just go with "most people's first perception of Drax would be he's just a big, muscly brute" if using a quote in the first place
  • How long Drax's makeup took to apply during the first film is better for that article
    • It provides context for this one, otherwise we are just saying it was 90 minutes for this film and readers who haven't read the other article wouldn't know that there was such an improvement this time. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • If including such detail in this article, then that's probably better for the "Production" section (perhaps its "development" subsection) Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your current description of Groot ain't supported here
    • That is just to support Diesel's return. The description is per my comment at the top of this section. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, it just seems odd to provide citations supporting everything but that Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "start all over, so to speak. So we're going to see this goofy, adorable, baby Groot [just] kinda learning as he goes"..... I'm sure you can guess by now what's wrong here with the brackets
  • How many languages Vin Diesel recorded Groot's lines in for the first movie is also detail better suited for that page
    • Again, context for this time—we can't assume readers have read the article for the first film. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • See my above response on a more appropriate section for that Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back with more in the future, though the fact that I've already had so many comments on cast section when I haven't gone through even a quarter of them is a bad sign..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "with Cooper's performance also referenced"..... you should probably specify that this was for lip movements
    Later in the source it also says his expressions were used, so it was more than simply his lips. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For "this is really about Rocket ... accepting his place within a group of people, which probably seemed like a good idea for two seconds when they were kind of getting along and saving the planet, and now's it's like, he's just not very comfortable with the idea", may as well include the "coming to terms with" between "Rocket" and "accepting" if quoting so much of Gunn's comments
    Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if Yondu was the crew leader in the first film, it's not as much of a focus this time around as his relationship with Star-Lord, so I'd take that leadership bit out. I'm also not convinced the fin detail is pertinent here, and don't know if Nerdist is a legitimate source.
    Removed about the leader. Fin is pertinent, and Nerdist is reliable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like you're missing a quotation mark before the "But, at the end of the day" bit, and I'd rewrite the "Gunn refused to [end the film with Yondu's death] for a long time" part as something like "Gunn initially refused to end the film with Yondu dying"
    Adjusted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how rumors of Yondu returning are worth including here, seems better for the main MCU page or perhaps one on its list of films if anywhere.
  • Nebula's current description isn't supported by Superherohype, though you can find it in IGN. I would also be more specific than "siblings" and say "sisters".
    Adjusted the ref tags. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How much hair Gillan shaved off for the prequel and how long it took to apply her makeup for that is better for the production section if including here at all
  • Deadline.com isn't so useful for Mantis when it was only speculating that would be Pom Klementieff's role.
    Removed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bit short on time at the moment, just getting that batch out while I could. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • While Deadline.com (linked above) and Comic Book Resources don't support Mantis' character description, Collider can be used in place
    Added in to the CBR source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not very familiar with ScreenCrush. Is it a valid source?
    Yup! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "beauty" is a subjective term; we can't insert our own personal opinions on cast members\
    But this is Gunn's opinion and doesn't come across as an editor putting their opinion on the matter. Though, would "looks" be better in this case? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might be missing something, but can't seem to find much here even mentioning Sean Gunn or Kraglin, though we can just use production notes or Comicbook.com anyway
  • "who has a history with Yondu" is rather vague; I'd note how he resents Yondu or maybe say that has a grudge against him
    Adjusted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For Stakar's acceptance of Yondu as a Ravager at the end of the film"..... let's be more specific and say that this was about him speaking and Yondu's funeral
  • "For the film's opening sequence, set in 1980 Missouri, Aaron Schwartz served as facial reference for the young Ego"..... let's just stick to the main point and say something like "For a younger version of Ego, Aaron Schwartz served as the character's facial reference"

Obviously still not done, but got through all the main roles..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • What makes Flickering Myth a quality source?
  • Maybe I'm missing something, but I couldn't catch a dog name for Cosmo in the attributed citations, and is a non-speaking role like that even worth including anyway?
    Cosmo is in Flickering Myth. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Richard Christy appear as anything other than himself? Either way, I'd scratch the description attached to him before you note he was a cameo as it's not pertinent to this article.
    Cameo was as a Ravager. I feel the description is helpful. Yes, a reader can click the link and go to his page, but looking just here, it is helpful to know this person is not an actor. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being friends with Gunn isn't the focus here; scratch that part entirely
    Removed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Michelle Yeoh as Stakar's female counterpart Aleta Ogord" is rather much, just go with "Michelle Yeoh as Aleta Ogord"
    Adjusted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If mentioning Rosenbaum's audition for Star-Lord here (which I'm not convinced is necessary and feel would be better suited for the first movie's page), then it's probably better for a section that talks about the casting process.
  • The casting of Michelle Yeoh and Miley Cyrus are also probably better suited for a later part of the article. I'm absolutely certain you can find something better than Buzzfeed for Miley, which isn't very professional and is largely filled with user-generated content; they easily could've been making details up here
    For the two above points, this info is similar to what is included for bulleted actors. Since these three are not, the info has been added after the "[actor] as [character] info". Also, the Buzzfeed info is from Buzzfeed News, which is the professional arm of the organization and not user generated. So it is ok to use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is Cinema Blend a good enough source to use?
  • Might be worth noting that Gunn's parents play a couple in the movie
    In the last paragraph. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finally done with this section (which was much longer than I initially thought it would be). More to follow in the future..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Production[edit]

Development[edit]

  • "In May 2014, Disney CEO Bob Iger talked about the future of Guardians of the Galaxy, saying, 'We believe it has strong franchise potential'" is rather much, I'd go with something like "In May 2014, Disney CEO Bob Iger stated he felt that the first Guardians of the Galaxy film 'has strong franchise potential'".
    Adjusted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Director and co-screenwriter James Gunn"..... Gunn has already been linked earlier in the "cast" section, so remove his link here per WP:OVERLINK. I'd also go with "James Gunn, who directed the first installment" or "James Gunn, who directed the first film"
    Adjusted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Michael Rooker, Yondu, Chris Pratt, Star-Lord, Bradley Cooper, Rocket Raccoon, Vin Diesel, Groot, Sean Gunn, Karen Gillan, Nebula, and Mantis have also already been linked before in the "cast" section and shouldn't be linked here again (WP:OVERLINK)
    Not overlinks. Actors should be linked in the cast section, as that is in a list format, and then should be linked in the first subsequent appearance in the production section, if they appear. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The presentation of "let me go and do my thing, and I truly listen to their notes and ideas. I've never been told to put in any character or plot element at all" suggests this was a continuous uninterrupted quote when it actually wasn't. Since there's an intervention in between "ideas" and "I've", let's separate the quote from that point and insert something like "adding that" or "noting" in between the bits. "When they trust you they give you a wide berth" also has misleading presentation since "and I think I've earned their trust over the past few years" comes in between "trust you" and "they give".
    It's not uninterrupted. I don't see how a third-party source presenting the info as such is an issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mantis and potential actors aren't even mentioned here
    When asked about casting newcomers for Guardians of the Galaxy 2, Gunn revealed that the process has already sort of begun. He’s already talking with someone about playing the character he has in mind, a new Guardian, as he labels it. Mantis was the new Guardian in the film, info from the proceeding sentence. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of the main things with Guardians of the Galaxy is not to add a bunch of characters, not to make it bigger in that way but to go deeper with the characters... and getting to know them more emotionally... everything is just getting too sprawling and too crazy for me in these superhero comic book movies" also gives readers the wrong idea; the "everything is just getting to sprawling" bit actually comes BEFORE the "getting to know them" part, contrary to what you've implied here. It would be safer to have something like "Gunn also stated" or "he also mentioned that" before "sprawling" piece.
    I'm not seeing anything quoted out of order. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything up to the "Writing" subsection, which I'm not sure should be a part of the "development" subsection (currently a level 4 heading rather than level 3). In any case, I'll be back with more later. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: I just wanted to let you know that I've seen your new comments since December 2. I am not able to be on Wiki as much as I would like at the moment, so I will try to get to some of these comments when I can, if someone does not beat me to it first. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to worry about at the moment when the review isn't complete, though knowing Adam, he'll likely get to these unless you do first. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS and Favre1fan93: Hey guys, I am also busier than I would like to be at the moment, but do hope to get to this soon (again, if others don't get to it first). There is clearly a bit of work to be done, and I would rather have some time to sit down and deal with it properly. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. As long as things don't take too long once all of my comments have been posted, we should be fine. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Writing[edit]
  • See above note on heading level for this section
  • Again, unlink Drax per WP:OVERLINK when he's already linked above
    Same as above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything here even suggesting that the "handful of Nova fans" quote encompasses Carol Danvers in any discernible way
  • "would certainly be part of a next Guardians adventure....I think there's a reason we seeded it at the very end of the [first] film like that"..... this presentation is also misleading when "next Guardians adventure" bit comes AFTER the "seeded it" part. Having something along the lines of "stating that" or "noting" would save readers from getting the wrong idea.
  • "with the other Phase Three films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe"..... let's keep it simple and say "with other Marvel Cinematic Universe films" or "with other MCU films"
    The quote is given in relation specifically to Phase Three and its films in the MCU. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Up next will be the "Pre-production" section when I get a chance to look that through. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-production[edit]

  • File:James Gunn by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg is perfectly fine to use
  • "Gunn announced the film's title as Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2"..... the film would be titled or the film was titled reads better
    Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't link languages per WP:OVERLINK, especially if the name is commonly recognized
    Do you feel the Icelandic language is something commonly recognized, especially in this context? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if the average English reader doesn't understand Icelandic terms, I'm pretty sure they at least know of the language, so yes Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now up to "Filming". Will probably do that and everything else section-by-section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filming[edit]

Next will be the "Post-production" section (which looks big and I doubt I'll do all in one go). Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In April, Gunn stated that Reilly would not be part of the film, and that Glenn Close would be filming scenes to reprise her role of Nova Prime Irani Rael from the first film, though it was unclear whether they would make it to the final cut of the sequel." None of this is in the cited source. The bit about Reilly is in the source cited for the following sentence, but I couldn't find anything about Close, and the last 16 words reek of OR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post-production[edit]

  • "Gunn also introduced multiple actors who were playing Ravager characters"..... let's give names
    There were at least 7. Again, getting to laundry list territory. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced it's necessary in this case to say that Raskin and Wood also edited the first film
    I don't see the harm. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and so didn't want"..... did not per WP:CONTRACTIONS
    Fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to the "Visual effects" sub-section later on..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Visual effects[edit]
  • For the image caption, I would recommend using "top" instead of "above" and "bottom" rather than "below" since the text isn't above either image in the way it seems to suggest
    Has been fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "actually photography" reads awkwardly, maybe try "consist of actual photography"
    Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't make sense to introduce Sarofsky's first name Erin after the first mention of her last name; I'd go with As with the first film, Executive Creative Director Erin Sarofsky
  • Sarnofsky happens to be the company name as well. So the first mention you were questioning is the company name, not the person's last name. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, it's not so bad. Definitely threw me off at first. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's the first half of this subsection. More to come later. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "we did have to do a partial build digi-double of the Hoff" doesn't actually lead right into "The reason we did the Kurt digi-double" in the way that the text currently suggests. It would be better to having something like "adding" or "noting that" in between the two sentences
    Same as above. I don't understand how the source choses to break up a person's quote is an issue for us. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Music[edit]

More done. Don't expect the "release" section to come up all at once when I do first post comments on that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Release[edit]

  • Vague in the sense that it doesn't give a specific day in the month, and we can't expect the average reader to discern exactly which ones they were solely by giving days of the week Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless I'm missing something, niether citation talking about IMAX notes IMAX 3D at all

Marketing[edit]

  • Nothing here even mentions June 2016
    Hmm... Seemed a ref tag got moved incorrectly. Fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "senior VP" → "senior Vice President"
    Fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "despite not showing any of the new characters or relying on Baby Groot"..... This is actually what Anderton liked about the teaser
    I don't feel this reads as a negative from Anderton. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlink the second instance of "/Film" per WP:OVERLINK (already linked earlier in this section)
    Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • iTunes charts should be left out per WP:BADCHARTS
    I feel in the context we are presenting this info, that wouldn't apply. If so, then I'm not sure there is another way to incorporate the info on Fox on the Run, which I think should be noted how it spiked in "popularity"/"sales" from the trailer. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind then; I was probably just thinking of inclusion within chart tables. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Home media[edit]

  • The features for digital and Blu-Ray should be separated by commas, not semi-colons
    Added a colon to listify the features, to keep the semi colons. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither source for the music video notes Guillermo Rodriguez; only Guillermo del Toro
    That's a miscredit on Variety's part. Finding a new source. - Favre1fan93 (talk)
  • If available, I would include figures for physical and digital purchases
    Not available as far as I've seen. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As well, in the United Kingdom where it was also the top film" reads very awkwardly
    Adjusted - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't believe I got through all of that in one go, but here we are! Next up will be at least part of "Reception". Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

Box office[edit]

  • My instinct says this subsection would be more appropriate under the "release" section as the money something earns isn't really connected to reviews
    True, it is not connected to reviews, but it is part of the film's reception. Hence a level 2 heading "Reception" and subsequent subsections. Also, per MOS:FILM#Box office: This information can be included under the Reception section, or if sufficient coverage exists, it is recommended that this information is placed in a "Box office" or "Theatrical run" section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The $200M budget is missing
    It isn't needed here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, including that alongside total gross shows this earned more than what was invested into creating it Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity, while I know that earnings tend to be rounded to the nearest hundredth-thousand in infoboxes, is that also supposed to be done in prose?
    The same, rounded to the nearest hundredth-thousand, unless specificity is needed to discuss a record or some other achievement or notability. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are any earnings or ticket figures from advance sales known?
    To my knowledge, no. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Predictions on earnings are completely unnecessary and meaningless when actual results are known
    Not true. It give context to how well the film did, or did not, perform against expectations. See as well this discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expectations often vary and fluctuate; they're not solid results to work with compared to what something ultimately earns. That linked discussion also doesn't make a convincing case for inclusion. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd note that the first weekend $145.6M is for North America; let's not mislead readers into thinking this was a global figure
    Clarified. Not sure why that was not included in the first place. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For IMAX, the first weekend $12M international total is worth including
    Why? This is actually for the second weekend of international release (first for US) and there wasn't anything notable about the $12 million earned overseas. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I misread something, but felt that since other openings were noted, the same logic would apply there. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might be missing something, but don't see any note of 2017 German openings here or here (only a figure and how it was the MCU's biggest debut there)
    In those linked sources, I'm not seeing what else are you looking to add. Everything notable on Germany has been included. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "multiple markets saw"..... names would be helpful for readers
    It's 30+ markets, and we don't want to be a laundry list. Brevity in this case is best. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in other markets"..... let's just go with "outside North America" or "outside the United States and Canada" since this was all cumulative foreign earnings
    Adjusted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Critical response" will be next. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response[edit]

  • I feel like another paragraph's worth of reviews should be added; eight doesn't seem like much for such a highly publicized and well-liked film
  • I'm not sure about using "Uproxx" (don't know how credible the site is overall), and Us Weekly definitely doesn't belong in a professional encyclopedia either way since that's a horrid gossip rag known to often make things up. The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, Empire, RogerEbert.com, The Atlantic, and The New Yorker would be nice additions.

Accolades[edit]

  • Not sure if it's a typo, but "Movie Ship" is given as one word
    Fixed - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to get refs giving results for Dragon Awards and Hollywood Music in Media Awards 2017
  • Is Cartoon Brew a valid source? I'm not familiar enough with it to make a definitive call myself.
    I believe Cartoon Brew is a valid source. Though I also found this from Animation World Network if you would like that used instead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost there! I'll do the "Sequel" section in the next run, possibly "References" as well. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel[edit]

  • What I mean is that the form of text used within the article incorrectly implies it was a continuous uninterrupted quote. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

  • This is A-OK

References[edit]

  • See my above comments on viability of sources
  • ALL citations need to include publications
  • Be consistent with whether you capitalize the "B" in "ComicBook.com"
    This has been fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if "Screen Rant" was known to be usable, it shouldn't be italicized
    Fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Huffington Post" should read "HuffPost" with italics
    At the point of publication, it was still called "The Huffington Post". Made italics though. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove ".com" from "Collider.com"
    Fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Marvel.com" → "Marvel Comics"
  • Unlink "Cinema Blend" as it doesn't seem likely to warrant its own page anytime soon (if at all)
    Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "TheWrap" shouldn't have a space in between its words
    Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't italicize MTV
    Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Goldderby.com" should be "Gold Derby" without italics
    Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty sure the "Sf" in "Sf. Louis Film Association" should be "St"
    Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "W" should be capitalized for "IndieWire"
    Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall[edit]

  • Prose: Some copyediting is needed, and quotes need to be used properly without misleading presentations
  • Referencing: Not all citations are high quality or formatted correctly, and ALL content needs to be supported by provided references
  • Breadth of Coverage: While mostly good, the "critical response" needs to be expanded (I've provided several links that can be used to do so), and it would be nice to have specific home media/ticket sales if available
  • Neutrality: No bias detected
  • Stability: Seems fine, even with occasional reverts
  • Media: All properly licensed, though I recommend revising one of the captions
  • Verdict: After thoroughly reviewing all of this page's content, I've decided to put it on hold. You have seven days to address the remaining concerns. If possible, it would be nice to have this finished in time for Christmas as a present for the MCU. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @SNUGGUMS: I have begun responding above. I hope to get through each point you brought up starting today through this week. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've unfortunately started rather late, and only have several hours before my hold expires, so move quickly! Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, but time for the hold has ran out, failing this as a result. While a decent amount of progress was made, not everything could be done in the allotted time, and what's particularly glaring is the unresolved concerns for cast and critical reception sections. Be sure EVERYTHING is adequately supported by given references (it really irked me to see a number of things not supported by the citations they were attributed to) and expand on the reviews before renominating. Best of luck for the future! Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_Vol._2/GA1&oldid=828782801"