Talk:Deadpool & Wolverine/GA1

GA review

Passed. Vestrian24Bio 13:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Nominator: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 21:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vestrian24Bio (talk · contribs) 11:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I will be reviewing this article, expect the initial remarks soon! Vestrian24Bio 11:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

@Adamstom.97:

EARWIG shows 99.1% - suspected violation.
- Looks like something went wrong with that search and it picked up Deadpool instead, which has apparently been turned into some kind of NFT. I did a new EARWIG search on this page and got "Violation unlikely". - adamstom97 (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now it shows 23.7%, good. Vestrian24Bio 13:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know this is beyond the scope of this GA review, but I have added that site to the bot exclusions list and registered it as a fork site here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Trailblazer101: thanks. Vestrian24Bio 13:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to Link-dispenser,
- Only 1 ref need an archive link.
  - Done - adamstom97 (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 53 & 229 are the same.
- Done - adamstom97 (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there any sort of news coverage or something for the tweets.
- Some sources picked up on the initial tweet, but I haven't seen any that noticed the follow-up tweet where he confirmed Scobell's role in the deleted scene. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vestrian24Bio 16:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC) Will continue, Vestrian24Bio 13:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be a comma (,) before "and".
- Is there any policy, guideline, or MOS that says not to use the serial comma? If not, I think this should remain and it is consistent with other MCU articles. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:Oxford comma there is no preference as long as we are consistent, and yeah all MCU articles use it. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the plot, "the Sacred Timeline and the wider multiverse".
- Done Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"P.T. Barnum" should be "P. T. Barnum".
- Done Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have feel like we should have a few more images in cast section together with Reynolds; I'd suggest: Jackman, Corrin and Macfadyen.
- Jackman's image is already included in the Development section where his decision to return is discussed. No other project-related cast images are freely available for us to use, aside from this one for Corrin. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think there are enough images of cast members throughout the article, and if we just added Corrin to the cast list it would be a bit arbitrary. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could have Shawn Levy's image in the development section.
- Levy's image is in the Marketing section in relation to him marketing the film. I don't think the image placement is wrong. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have an image that fits in the development section and nothing for marketing, so for a good spread of images throughout the article it makes sense to have Levy there. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the development section,
- "suggest to Feige that the film would not move forward at the time"
  - Corrected to "could". Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- "He was won over by the idea that" - could just say "he was convinced by" for WP:NPOV.
  - Done Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why part of the title in ref 133 is italicized? also in refs 137, 183, 186, 187, and maybe some other I didn't notice as well...
- Refs from Entertainment Weekly and Wired have the title of works intentionally italicized. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need for refs on image captions as it's already explained in the adjacent paragraph as well.
- I have seen recent edits on other film-related articles add citation for captions and notes because each line ought to have a direct citation for the ease of verification. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sometimes for more complex captions it can be helpful to include the citations, but I am happy to remove these. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could bundle the four refs after "An early reveal of the costume was met with positive reactions online" inside a note to avoid OVERKILL.
- Some of those refs are cited elsewhere in the article for specific design details, so I am not sure if bundling them together would make it easier to verify some of those. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have removed one so there is only three in a row, the fourth one is still used in the same paragraph for other content. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The film was shot on location where possible, to create a more grounded feeling than can be achieved with soundstages" - could you clarify what this sentence was supposed to mean exactly...
- I'm not too sure what the confusion is with this one, they felt shooting on location made the film feel more grounded than shooting on soundstages does. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - the "feeling than can be achieved" bit. Vestrian24Bio 02:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have re-written this sentence to try clarify this. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - Looks better. Vestrian24Bio 10:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vestrian24Bio 11:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why 4 refs (The Number, BOM, RT, Metacritic) are defined within the article, instead of inside the reflist..
- These four refs need to be updated whenever their contents change, so it is standard practice to keep them next to their info to make it easier / encourage the ref updates. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the post-production section, "who he was attached to star as in an unproduced" - remove "he".
- "he" is correct here, "Channing Tatum appears as Gambit, who was attached to star as in an unproduced film" doesn't make sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- "who" and "he" together doesn't seem meaningful, maybe reword? Vestrian24Bio 11:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have reworded the caption. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"same impact as an appearance by Evans" should be "same impact as the appearance by Evans".
- I think "an" works better in this sentence because it is written in past tense. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Vestrian24Bio 11:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Gillberg was inspired for this by a comic book art".
- "comic book art" is plural. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't "Corrin was filmed hiding their arm" be "Corrin was filmed hiding her arm"...
- "their" is the correct pronoun for Corrin. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 224 (Little Black Book) is an unreliable source.
- I couldn't find any previous discussions about it being unreliable, and it is a platform for the creative industry where Method Studios has released details on their work. Doesn't seem any different to them posting the same details on their own website, which would definitely be fine for use. There are some alternate sources we could use instead of this one but they are nowhere near as good as this. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I found this: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 375#Little Black Book (lbbonline.com). Vestrian24Bio 11:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is pretty vague, looks like one user deemed it unreliable based on an old version of the about page which has changed since then. If you are still concerned we may need to start a new RS discussion based on the current version of the site. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could link Shanghai, London and Rio de Janeiro or unlink Seoul and Berlin in the third paragraph of the "Marketing" section to be consistent.
- Added city links for consistency. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Water Festival" should be "Water festival".
- Done - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alpine F1 Team's liver is called Deadpool & Wolverine livery not just Deadpool.
- Done - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 282 does not cover "It was released in France, Germany, Italy, South Korea, and Japan on July 24; in Spain, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Mexico, and Australia on July 25;".
- The source is from July 23 and says "Deadpool & Wolverine rolls out in all international markets this frame, beginning Wednesday with France, Germany, Italy, Korea and Japan; followed by Spain, Brazil, UK, Mexico and Australia on Thursday; and with China joining Friday." - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could link "fifth-highest grossing MCU film" to the BO section of List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films.
- Done - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
34th film in the MCU - isn't mentioned anywhere in the body of the article.
- This doesn't really need to be in the body or have a source, it is a basic count that gives context in the intro. If there was controversy around the numbering for MCU films then that would be different. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the biggest opening of 2024 so far" - had it been surpassed or did it remain as such till the year end, full context should be added.
- It was never surpassed so removed "so far". - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's the 21st-highest-grossing film ever now.
- We don't update this every time a new film climbs up the all time rankings, that is why we say "at the time of its release" in the lead. I have added similar wording to the box office section. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vestrian24Bio 02:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Link Deadline Hollywood in the beginnf og the second paragraph of the critical response section as its the first mention within the article's body.
- Done - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"immediate experience over the wider MCU set-up".
- This is not talking about specific MCU set-up, but rather MCU set-up in general. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The San Francisco Chronicle".
- "The" is not included in the name, and adding it there makes it sound like LaSalle is the only critic for that paper. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why the AP review is mentioned in both the second and third paragraphs... Similarly, the HR review is in both the third and fourth paragraphs..
- The critical response section is roughly organised by common themes in the reviews, so in some places where reviews comment on multiple themes they make sense to be included in multiple places. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"stuck the landing" quote isn't in the Vanity Fair review on ref 323.
- Not sure what happened there, have changed the wording. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"scored the film just one star" - out of how many?
- Done - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The Chicago Sun-Times".
- Same as above, not actually in the name and in the context of the sentence sounds like "the" is being applied to the critic. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could add a translated title to ref 356.
- Done - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Define values for the upright option in images as the usage of it without a value is discouraged per MOS:UPRIGHT.
- Done - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could add the year images were taken to alt texts.
- Done - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The right align option on images are redundant as they align to right by default.
- Done - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:FILMACCOLADES says, Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability. - Advanced Imaging Society Lumiere Awards, HPA Awards and ICG Publicists Awards don't have articles. should be removed from the list.
- Each of those do have a dedicated article for the organisation and coverage from reliable sources, I don't think they come under the same category as the non-article awards that MOS:FILMACCOLADES is trying to prevent. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Golden Trailer Awards was on May 30.
- Done - adamstom97 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. Vestrian24Bio 07:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All else good, will do a dupelink check and spot-check. Vestrian24Bio 12:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All good, passing for GA. Vestrian24Bio 13:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Final review

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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.