Talk:X-Men: First Class/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ankitbhatt (talk · contribs) 17:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for leaving this review blank for a day. I'm a little short of time, so I'll just discuss some aspects of the article; the rest shall come in further updates. Please note that I conduct my reviews in a very fine-combed way, and I tend to find lots of grammar mistakes, so I hope you are not uncomfortable.

• For an article this big, the lead is rather small. It needs at least one extra paragraph of a length similar to the previous ones, so as to fully summarize the article.

• "based on the X-Men characters appearing in Marvel Comics." This bit seems to be misplaced. It would be better to place it before the director and producer credits.

• "as a prequel for the original X-Men trilogy" Prequel for? I believe its "prequel to".

• "additional photography finishing in April 2011" Photography? You mean photos were taken in this period? I doubt that. I guess you meant "filming".

• "soundstage work in both Pinewood Studios and the 20th Century Fox stages" Missing "done".

That's it for right now. Be back in a couple of hours for more. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Done (except the extra paragraph, I'll work that out with what you provide next). igordebraga ≠ 12:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

More:-

• "with soundstage done work in both Pinewood Studios" Eh? "done work"? I guess you reversed the order.

• "Oxford University with a mutation thesis." Please expand; it should be "thesis in mutation".

• "a prehensile-footed mutant," Prehensile is a complex word, may not be familiar to those who are non-native speakers (and to those who have not seen the film at all). I suggest wikilinking or simplifying.

• "McCoy's mutant-locating device Cerebro to find mutants to attempt to recruit against Shaw." Too many "to"s in quick succession. You could change the latter part of the sentence to "in an attempt to recruit..." to break the monotonousness.

• "He and Lensherr recruit stripper Angel Salvadore" Who does "he" refer to exactly? Xavier, McCoy or someone else?

• Unnecessary endash after Angel Salvadore; a comma would carry out exactly the same purpose.

• "He and Lensherr recruit stripper Angel Salvadore—along with taxi driver Armando Muñoz, Army prisoner Alex Summers, and Sean Cassidy, who code-name themselves Darwin, Havok, and Banshee, respectively—while Raven names herself Mystique" One will become breathless reading this. I suggest some splitting.

• Is there a need to say what Wolverine said exactly? You could just do with "he declined" or something :P.

• "When Frost meets with a Soviet general" Unnecessary "with".

• In one instance, you say "Havok" but in another you say "Havoc". Which is correct?

• "McAvoy admitted he felt that there was a comparison" Doesn't seem right. I would be better put as "McCoy admitted to feeling similarities between ..."

• "and just thought that he would be right for this film." Any need of "just"?

• In fact, the entire Michael Fassbender bit is not well-written. Please re-write since there are grammar mistakes and a lack of flow.

More later. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Additional photography" is actually an accurate industry phrase; a cinematographer is formally known as a director of photography

It would be great if a wikilink is available, otherwise this phrase is confusing and should be modified.

• Given that this is a PG-13 movie and no other swearing or profanity appears in the dialog other than Wolverine's, the actual quote is in that respect (though obviously to a lesser historical degree) as notable in this context as "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" in the otherwise profanity-free Gone with the Wind (film), or "Let's get the hell out of here" in the otherwise curse-free "The City on the Edge of Forever", and should be included for that reason.

Fine.

However, another editor just pointed out that we had this line of dialog inserted twice in the same article, which I hadn't realized. To avoid redundancy, I've removed it from the plot and left it a cast-section behind-the-scenes segment that discusses how the exact line, which was ad-libbed, came about. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• "meet a Soviet general" could be taken to mean "to be introduced to" or "to have a first encounter with." "Meet with" is a legitimate differentiating phrase meaning "to have a meeting with."--Tenebrae (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you give some more, as the above was done? igordebraga ≠ 16:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure I can, and I would have if you had just written 'Done or something to show that you have completed the bits :). This is in my watchlist, so I won't miss it.

More

• I would suggest breaking the Cast bits into separate lines after the Character descriptions. Example, after describing the bit about Professor X and his relationship with Lensherr, you can split the rest into a different line. I've done the first one since its a minor edit.

• "McAvoy said he did not read comic books as a child" Missing "that".

• The McAvoy quote about similarities is a bit big. Could you trim it down?

• "and sent him the X-Men script." and "Gathegi became interested in a role in the X-Men films" Italicize X-Men.

• "who saw Lensherr as a Machiavellian character neither good nor evil," The "neither good nor evil" bit sounds odd. You could add "who is".

• "for being an actor that could convey a villain" "That" would be a wrong word, "who" would be correct.

• "Bacon accepted to take the role" Uh, did you amalgamate "accepted the role" and "decided to take the role"? Why not just use one of the given?

• "he tried to portray Shaw as a sociopath to which "the morality of the world did not apply"" "Which" would be wrong, "whom" would be correct.

• "Bacon was considered for Shaw for being an actor that could convey a villain "with different shades, that's not always clear that he's the bad guy",[11] and Bacon accepted to take the role as he was a fan of Vaughn's Kick-Ass, and liked both the character of Shaw and the script, which he described as "a fresh look at the franchise, but also the comic book movies in general"." Could you break this bit after the different shades bit?

• "he tried to portray Shaw as a sociopath to which "the morality of the world did not apply", as well as a "Hugh Hefner type"." May I suggest - "he tried to portray Shaw as a sociopath of a "Hugh Hefner type", to whom "the morality of the world did not apply"."

• "Byrne said she was unfamiliar with both the comics" Missing "that".

• "The actress was cast late into production,[13] which had already begun filming by the time she was picked for the role." You are saying production and filming back-to-back, strange. Perhaps "The actress was cast late into production, which had already begun by the time she was picked for the role." would be better.

• "Vaughn said Lawrence was picked because" Missing "that". I think that a number of active sentences were rapidly changed into passive form without going in-depth. Same goes for "and felt their portrayals were very contrasting", "Jones said she did only a limited exercise routine to keep in shape", "Jones also said the script defined the character more than the comics", "The producers told Till his audition served for both Havok and Beast", "Flemyng, who had previously been considered for Beast in The Last Stand, said he did not want more make-up heavy roles", "Jackman said he accepted the offer to appear"

• "as she considered Romijn was "the most gorgeous person in the world"" "Was" is wrong, "to be" would be correct.

• You say that Alice Eve was originally cast, but you don't follow up on why she left. It seems odd and a sudden change. Could you elaborate?
  • The ref I used before was questioned...

• "and while discovering that like the show it was set in the 1960s," Rather non-stop. I suggest some breaks around the "like the show" part.

• Some of the bits in the Cast section seem much better suited to the Visual effects or other sections. I'd like to discuss this.

• "who transformed into a frightening looking mutant" Hyphenate frightening-looking.

• "the designers added iridescence to the wings to make them prettier." Prettier is rather silly. Why not say "more attractive"?

• "Jones auditioned not knowing what X-Men character he was up for," The "not knowing" bit sounds odd. "Without knowing" does the trick.

• "as he likes working with Vaughn." tense.

• Write the year of release for any film you mention, example Clash of the Titans (2010).

• "The actor spent eight weeks doing sword and fight training" Sword and fight training?

• "which like Mystique was designed by Spectral Motion" You could bracket the "like Mystique" part for better flow.

• "González had forgotten that he had auditioned by the time he was called by the casting director to learn he had the role." Could you re-word this?

• "compared Riptide being respectable and polite while performing fierce attacks to a hurricane;" Eh, didn't understand. Re-wording needed.

• "Glenn Morshower as Col. Hendry" Expand Colonel.

• "Rade Sherbedgia as Russian General" Missing "a". Same for "Brendan Fehr as Communications Officer".

• "A young woman Xavier flirts with in a bar after observing she has heterochromia" Add a comma after "bar".

That's about all the problems I can find in the Cast section (LOL :)) ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Expanded, moved and changed what I could. Anything else? igordebraga ≠ 18:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, some of the points I put have not been rectified, especially concerning the inclusion of "that". Any reason? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll look for any errant points not addressed. Not sure what you mean by "inclusion of 'that'" — I removed those instances where the word wasn't needed, unless someone reinserted them unnecessarily. I'm a journalist by profession, for over 30 years, and it's basic good writing to remove unneeded "that"s in prose. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

More

• "which met with approval" Missing "was".

• "and also that the producers wanted an adaptation that would introduce new characters." "That" is wrong, "because" would be correct.

• "Both Kinberg and Shuler Donner said they wanted characters" Missing "that". Same for "Shuler Donner later said the original idea was to green-light First Class"

• "Fox afterwards approached Bryan Singer," "Afterwards" would be better replaced by "later".

• "Schwartz later said Singer dismissed his work" Missing "that". Same for "and seeing it was during the 1960s", "but accepted after discovering it was to be set in the 1960s", "Vaughn said he was motivated by "unfinished business"", "Regarding continuity, Vaughn said his intention was", "Goldman added the film was kind of an "alternate history""

• The year of release must be mentioned after a film, which you have not done for Kick-Ass or Inception, not to mention several others.

• "saying that while rebooting" There should be some breaks before and after "while rebooting" since the current sentence implies that the writers were rebooted (lol).

• Wikilink principal photography.

• "lasting for two days." Better to write as "and lasted for two days".

• "so it would look more like a tropical beach" Missing "that".

• "and Fox's stages in Los Angeles" Elaborate that by stages, you mean soundstages.

• "but additional photography continued into April 2011," Same as before, change "photography" to "filming".

• "before its scheduled premiere in June." Here, "it" seems to be referring to the post-production. Better to re-phrase as "the film's".

More coming up. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Done those. igordebraga ≠ 02:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

More

• "The tight schedule due to having to meet Fox's previously set release date lead Vaughn to declare" Tense.

• "to declare that he "never worked under such time pressure"" Missing "had".

• "he film cost approximately $160 million to produce before tax breaks," "Before" would be better replaced by "without".

• "also adding to the international feel of the characters." "Also adding" -> "which also added".

• "Both the submarine and the X-Jet were built on hydraulic sets so that they could be rotated for the vehicles' movements." How does this bit of information fit with the context of 1960s setting and Bond films?
  • Must have missed it along with the rewrites.

• "Vaughn said he shot the film in anamorphic" -> "In the anamorphic format". Many readers tend to get confused with this part.

• "Three versions of Shaw's helmet were made, two to fit Fassbender's head and one for Bacon's." Again, no real context with the rest of the paragraph.
  • It's following the other wardrobe discussion... think it needs a rewrite?

Well, the paragraph talks about 1960s-inspired wardrobe, of which helmets were not a defining factor. You could club it elsewhere. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure, but some parts of the effects bit seem to be unsourced, like "with the Russian one in particular having vehicles and military hardware based on videos of a 1962 Red Square, and a digital army doing an actual Soviet-style march. With the exception of scenes featuring the actors on ships (shot in a small bridge set) and the X-Jet (done on a set replicating the front two-thirds of the aircraft, which was mounted atop a roller wheel so it could be spun) the naval battle was entirely digital, featuring a simulated ocean and high resolution 3D models of the X-Jet, Shaw's submarine and 16 warships." Is this also referenced by Ref20, or is something missing?
  • Yes it is.

• "and the dome lab walls of Cerebro." Uh, what are "dome lab walls"?

• "shot in a small bridge set" "In" -> "on".

• "and replicas of the actual US and USSR fleets in the 1960s" Since you give one more statement after this, removing the "and" here is better.

• "which were concentrated in beams or rings of light which were then match moved into Till's mimed throwing." Two "which"s in quick succession. Slight re-phrasing?

• "wrote the score" Again, not sure, but "wrote" a score? Wouldn't "composed" be more accurate?

• "drew inspiration from John Barry's work in said series," Missing "the".~
  • Where? (I put before inspiration, just in case)

"John Bary's work in the said series" ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• "including $3.4 million at its Friday midnight launch." "at" -> "in".

• The sentence about Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic needs re-wording, its choppy.

• "charging, churning score by Henry Jackman..." Umm, you didn't end the quote with a ".

• "Dykstra are smoothly and imaginatively integrated...." Why so many dots at the end?

• The Frank Lovece review quote is pretty long, venturing to WP:UNDUE. Is it really necessary to write all of "This is not a kids' movie, unless your kid is comfortable with an opening ten-minute sequence set in a harrowing World War II concentration camp and told entirely in subtitled German."? Why not just stop with the fact that its not a kids' film?

• "Fox envisions X-Men: First Class as the first film of a new trilogy." Tense.

• "The sequel is scheduled for a release" Specify that by sequel, you mean X-Men sequel, not The Hunger Games sequel.

I guess that's it among the prose (surprising since much of the problems were concentrated at the beginning of the article). A final reference check has to be done, though a few more bits like lead and Cast-VFX need to be done up. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Added the extra paragraph, moved some more content out, and did what you asked above. igordebraga ≠ 04:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Reference review coming up, though Net connection is a bit spotty right now so you may have to wait for some time (don't worry, I'll do it today :P). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

References

• Ref7. Are you sure Reelz is reliable?
  • It's backed up by a TV channel.
• Ref29. The credentials seem to be impressive but I'm still doubtful of the reliability.
  • Besides the credentials, it's used in other GAs.
• Ref37. Again, the source site seems a little shaky.
  • Again, news website backed by TV channel.
• Ref69. Is this reliable?
  • That's just a transcript of reference 70 (it's an audio interview, after all). Cut.
• Ref70. Why do I get such unreliable feelings when seeing a magazine? The site has a rather unprofessional, random-chat-area look.
  • Looks like a credible source.

• Ref71. For some reason, I can't access the "About Us" tab, which does give me doubts.
  • Replaced.

Otherwise fine. Please note that I am not explicitly saying that the references are unreliable, just that they don't look very reliable to me. This may be because I am not really familiar with all possible sources for Hollywood films. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

While checking the references, Ref58 didn't seem to open with me; it may be a dead link.Can anyone confirm this? Also, it doesn't look very reliable.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Well my Internet connection hasn't been 100% reliable today, so i'm not sure I could access it. However, if it is a dead link, it will be another problem. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I have checked Ref58; it is opening. While the site itself looks unreliable, it is run by a respected trade person, so yes, it is reliable. Guess this clears it up. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup, it works now. --Eddyghazaley (talk) 08:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Replied to the above. igordebraga ≠ 18:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well done! :) Final review coming up. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 19:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Final review

• Well-written

The article is well-written, comprehensive and clear in its language and method of placing the content. The article follows the MOS, and has no visible grammar or spelling errors.

• Factually accurate and verifiable

The content in the article is properly sourced to reliable sources, and does not contain original research.

• Broad in its coverage

The article is thorough on all the necessary aspects, and does not delve into unnecessary or excessive detail for any particular aspect.

• Neutral

The article possesses a neutral tone, with the prose being balanced and complete on both positive and negative aspects.

• Stable

Excluding necessary GA fixes, the article is stable and is not suffering from content disputes or edit wars.

• Illustrated

The article is well-illustrated by a number of images, minimally non-free content.

In view of the passing of the good article criteria, i hereby pass this article as a GA. Great job! :) ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 19:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)