Talk:Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007 film)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Hi. I will be your host today, if you need anything, just say it! Anyways, on to the review:

Y The lead should be expanded. Perhaps add a second paragraph, discussing the plot.
Y Could " Plot" be shortened? It's pretty long as it is now.
Y Some of the references need to be formatted per WP:CITE/ES preferably with {{cite web}}.
Y Insufficient references in "DVD & Blu-ray Disc release" and rename the section to "DVD and Blu-ray disc releases"
Y Link: "21 December "
Y Generally speaking, please give the entire article a thorough copyedit so that there aren't any major grammatical issues and such.

Gary King (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to this article being nominated, I requested that User:EyeSerene copyedit the article (at the time I was far too busy to do so myself). He is currently rather busy himself, and I have contacted him on his talk page to ask about the present status of the copyediting. Most of these issues would normally be dealt with by him, but if he cannot copyedit the article within a day or so, I'll attempt to improve the article accordingly myself. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 01:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will also attend to the review suggestions, and thank you Gary for evening the score by reviewing a GA I nominated :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should get a clear run over the next few days, so hopefully we can finish up before the end of the week. EyeSerene^talk 09:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great job so far! What hasn't yet been done already? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to pick from the various comments above ;) The cites still need formatting (as we're heading FA-wards eventually, I think using the templates on WP:CITET would be best, although Gary King quite rightly hasn't asked for it as part of this GA review!), and I'm sure any further copyediting would be very welcome. EyeSerene^talk 17:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many thanks to EyeSerene for the brilliant copyedit. He did an excellent job, and there aren't many contributers to it nowadays besides Judge, EyeSerene and I, so it was much appreciated. Is there anything further we should work on to improve its quality, or is it ready? --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 21:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other concerns I listed need to be addressed – only the prose has been worked on so far. Gary King (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. ;-) I need some sleep, forgive me. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 06:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary, could you elaborate "insufficient references" per the list of concerns? I don't know if you mean purely unreliable sources, dead links, or just references that won't do. Thanks, --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 06:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

There are [citation needed] tags in that section, which need to be resolved. Gary King (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Done. :-) --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 07:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← Please resolve all [citation needed] tags. Gary King (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references are not all quite formatted yet. References 30–33 are all not formatted, for example. Please check them all to ensure that they each have at least a title, URL, publisher, and access date. Gary King (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, Gary. I will resolve said issues promptly (tomorrow). For now, I need to get some sleep before I inadvertantly destroy Wikipedia and all its editors. :P Thank you all for your patience, and happy Fourth of July! Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 07:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The ref formatting is at the top of my to-do list. I should be able to get it done today... EyeSerene^talk 09:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I got it all (I used Ctrl+F to find all the tags, but it took awhile), but I suppose I missed three. While you're formatting that, ES, I'll find references for the [citation needed] tags. It should be easy; the uncited quote about Bonham Carter's desire to fill the supporting role since she was eleven, for instance, was heard in a commentary on the DVD. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 15:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A brief query: does this make a reliable source? It appears to be somewhat of a fansite, but would solve some referencing problems in the article, and appears reliable. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 15:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From a brief once-over, parts of it look ok. Certainly the interviews it reposts are good, although I'd suggest sourcing them to their primary source rather than this second-hand one if possible (btw, just to be clear, I mean tracking down the original interview rather than copying sourcing off the site :P) EyeSerene^talk 16:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. Thanks for the assistance! --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 16:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think that's all of them. I hesitate to say this, but we may need to look for a better source than IMDB for the alternate versions stuff - IMDB isn't generally regarded as WP:RS. EyeSerene^talk 17:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try that, as well. I agree, IMDB is better as "External Links" (or "Further Reading") material. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 17:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M'Kay...Anything further? --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 23:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, wow, a lot of discussion has taken place since I last commented here :) Give me a moment and I will take another look. Gary King (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Box office release data. Box Office Mojo, LLC. (correct as of March 20, 2008). Retrieved on June 30, 2008." – correct as of is not necessary – that's what the retrieval date is for ;)
Link the date in "Cinema Fans Accuse Sweeney Todd Of False Advertising. femalefirst.co.uk (February 5, 2008). Retrieved on July 4, 2008."
Remove "from" in "2008 MTV Movie Awards Winners from MTV.com. Retrieved on June 7, 2008."
Could a better reference be found for "^ Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007) - Alternate versions. IMDb.com, Inc.. Retrieved on July 4, 2008." since that's IMDB, a source that is not always reliable?

Gary King (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Alrightie, I am on it. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 04:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to find the (correct as of March 20, 2008) in the first reference; it appears in the references section, but is not in the Wikicode in the infobox. Could someone double-check to see if it is there? --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 04:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note on that - the retrieval date shows the date the website was last accessed, but the 'correct as of...' is the last time the box-office figures were updated on the site. The two are different. EyeSerene^talk 08:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Marcus Theatres not running 'Cloverfield'. Retrieved on July 4, 2008." needs a publisher Gary King (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This one is done. The rest of them I cannot remedy because I can't find the markup that's causing the undesirable text. Can anyone else see it? --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 16:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other stuff are in the references. Gary King (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha! I've cunningly hidden my disruptive edits beyond all human ingenuity to find :D Seriously, I'll have a look. Are we OK with the "correct as of..." one per my above comment? EyeSerene^talk 17:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it can't be removed, it should probably be taken out because that information can just be accessed on the page (I assume). BTW, I can't find any other references for the international versus american version info (other than IMDB and pages quoting IMDB, so I'll have you take one last look, and if you can't find any still, we'll throw it out. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 17:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got all the date formatting in the refs now. I do think that "correct as of..." is important, because it prevents misleading the reader - the figures may change again (as I noticed they had from what was originally there during my copyedit), and unless you want to keep checking the website and updating the article accordingly... EyeSerene^talk 17:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, then. I can't seem to find the inconsistency of 21 December, however. Maybe the same is set in my prefs. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 17:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither can I - I've left Cornucopia a note asking where they are. EyeSerene^talk 17:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← Hi, any update to this? Gary King (talk) 08:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all your points have now been addressed, with the exception of the "figures correct as of...", which hopefully I've justified above. However, if you insist on it going, we can do that too. Cornucopia has fixed the dates (s)he mentioned (see talk page), so hopefully there's nothing now outstanding? EyeSerene^talk 11:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this discussion was getting long and unwieldy and I got completely lost sitting here while you guys worked away :) I'll take a second look now. Gary King (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made this edit which I think keeps the information but makes it more succinct. Revert if you disagree, though. Anyways, the article looks good now, so I'm passing it. Gary King (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gary; no arguments with your edit ;) EyeSerene^talk 10:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]