Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/GoldenEye/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 02:08, 1 June 2007.

GoldenEye edit

Previous FAC


I feel that this article is very well-written, has a good amount of sources, and is well organised. Under the recent guidence of WP:BOND, this article has seen an improvement and is now at a very high standard. Reasons for previously failing the article at this stage included a lack of references in the Vehicles, gadgets and guns section, the plot section needing copy-editing, and general source problems. These have been amended. - • The Giant Puffin • 13:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - There's a lot of images, which make the article look untidy. Alientraveller 15:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed some of the images, and rearranged the remaining ones to make the article look less cluttered - • The Giant Puffin • 19:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneFurther changes have improved the situation more - • The Giant Puffin • 16:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support well written and referenced, though some images may not be necessary (the St. Petersburg and Monte Carlo on "Development" and most of the "Vehicles and gadgets", in my opinion) igordebraga ≠ 17:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No apparent problems. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per igordebraga. Cliff smith 00:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The pictures mentioned by igordebraga have been removed. The pictures there now are used sparingly and appear right next to the text that references them. They have good placement, and I think the ones left all belong there. The content is well written. ColdFusion650 13:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article is not comprehensive; that is a result of the sources that the editors consulted. Since GoldenEye is a relatively old film now, there is a fair bit of scholarly criticism on it, so you can have a "Themes" and "Style" (or some such named) section that is fully sourced to academics. This page looks like a fan page to me (and I'm a fan of James Bond, so I want it to be good!). Since this is a film, you need to discuss the art of film; there is absolutely no discussion of that here. Also, you need to discuss the content of the movie a lot more (and I do not mean the plot - I mean give an analysis backed up by scholars). How does this film deal with gender issues or the end of the Cold War, for example? Those would be two of the most obvious questions that would need a lot of detail. This page is missing way too much to be an FA. The editors need to do a substantial amount of research, revise the page, submit it to peer review and then resubmit it to FAC. It is easy to find articles and books on Bond and even specifically Goldeneye. Try google scholar for a beginning. There are also some collections of essays (I listed these down at the James Bond FAC which suffered from the same lack of scholarly sources. WP:RS. Do not sell Bond short. Awadewit 07:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Prose is generally poor. Why is "Different Direction" capitalized? Why is the gadgets section near the top of the article? --- RockMFR 15:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have decapitalised the different direction section. Is there any section in particular that is poorly written? - • The Giant Puffin • 16:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The gadgets section is near the top because Casino Royale was decided as the template for all Bond film articles, as it was considered the best. And after a long discussion over there, it was decided to have the sections go in that particular order. ColdFusion650 16:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this convention makes any sense. Plot and cast are far more important than a list of gadgets (which is important, yes). --- RockMFR 02:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not my decision. Uniformity across the Bond film articles is very important. In this particular case, it's more important than reordering this individual article. As this change would have to be applied to all Bond film articles, it should probably be discussed at WP:007. ColdFusion650 02:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Well thats since been changed throughout the series, so the article is now better organised - • The Giant Puffin • 16:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The choices made on the article's style need more consistency. For example, the lead uses "17th" yet the the article uses "six". LuciferMorgan 01:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some kind of writing convention for when to use numerals and when to write it out, isn't there? ColdFusion650 01:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I usually write out numbers less than 11 and use numerals when 11 or greater. --- RockMFR 02:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to that convention, the above is a non-issue. ColdFusion650 02:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Mostly it's not comprehensive enough as Awadewit said. Here's some other things I picked up:
    • Prose needs work. One section begins "They were unable to film at Pinewood Studios..." Each time you begin a new section you shouldn't use "they" or "he" each section is similar to a new article. You wouldn't start the early life section of a biography by saying "He was born on..."
    • "The book follows the film's storyline quite closely," quite is informal and redundant.
    • "Bond drives a tank through St. Petersburg and through a wall." Saying through twice there makes for weak prose.
    • I agree with RockFMR about the order of the sections, gadgets should be lower.
    • Ref 20 is blank, a ref in the other media section is not formatted at all.
IMDb is not a reliable source though (#20).
    • "GoldenEye was adapted into a highly-regarded[60] and very successful[61] video game for the Nintendo 64 by Rareware." Can we move these refs to the end of the sentence for readability's sake?
    • Per the MoS section headers shouldn't begin with "A[n]".
    • "This brought doubt over whether James Bond was still relevant in the modern world, as many of the previous films pitted Bond against Soviet adversaries." Needs a cite, doubt from who?
    • "already been booked." Booked doesn't seem very formal to me, maybe it's just me.
    • Dashes aren't done correctly see WP:DASH. Quadzilla99 05:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have fixed all of the above except for the placement of the gadgets section, the A[n] as a header, and the dash problems. I would change the placement of the gadgets section, but someone would simply revert it citing the aforementioned reason. At present I cant think of an alternative heading for "A different direction", although I'm working on it. I have changed the "A different direction" section header. As for the dashes, which uses of the "-" are incorrect? - • The Giant Puffin • 15:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:DASH, I'll look it over later today. Quadzilla99 13:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above concerns were addressed however, as I said when I opposed it needs a themes/styles section and some expansion as Awadewit said. Quadzilla99 03:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is source 20 not reliable? IMDb is a pretty reliable source, and the link provided clearly supports the passage it is attatched to - • The Giant Puffin • 08:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone is a little confused. IMDB is not a reliable source for future movies. They have a tendency to post rumors as fact. However, for movies that have already been released, they are just fine. Check how many articles reference them. However, the IMDB ref has been removed. It turns out that the same information (the opening credits being about Russia collapsing) is included in the next ref, the interview with the guy on jamesbond.com. So, it doesn't really matter about IMDB anymore. ColdFusion650 11:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not confused. IMDb is generally not considered reliable, especially the trivia sections, if you have time see here, here, and here. It's been removed so that's not an issue anyway. Quadzilla99 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Well thats done per removal of the reference in question - • The Giant Puffin • 13:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above, and because the article has fancruft parading under "Vehicles and gadgets". LuciferMorgan 10:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah in my opinion it is. Should be removed. LuciferMorgan 11:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole section? Or particular sentences of it? Vehicle and gadget sections are always included, they're not fancruft themselves - • The Giant Puffin • 11:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole section yes. If it's always included, then it shouldn't be - it means someone is always adding fancruft. LuciferMorgan 22:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fancruft policy states that fancruft is unimportant. However, it is common knowledge that Bond movies are characterized by their gadgets. In fact, some critics say that the more recent movies are centered around the gadgets. They are very important and not at all fancruft. And by my count, I've cited 3 policy pages to your none. I win. ColdFusion650 23:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the Bond series is famed for its use of exotic cars and futuristic gadgets, it is not fancruft, as said above - • The Giant Puffin • 08:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Wikipedia:Fancruft is not a policy page, so read more clearly ColdFusion650 when you wish to sound smarmy. Also, as stated at[1], Wikipedia isn't a collection of information. Also check, Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. This is pure fancruft and there's no getting away from this. Furthermore,
  • Criterion 1. a. says ""Well written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." It isn't engaging, as the article's list under "Vehicles and gadgets" disrupts this.
  • Criterion 1. c. Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources" - I contest that www.jamesbondmm.co.uk, www.mi6.co.uk and www.commanderbond.net fail WP:RS as they appear to be James Bond fansites.

Feel free to amend the above issues. LuciferMorgan 16:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, without sounding smarmy, the vehicle and gadgets section is not a trivia section. Secondly, I agree that it shouldnt be in list form. And, finally, mi6.co.uk (atleast) is a reliable webite, and just because it is dedicated to a certain fictional universe does not make it unreliable - • The Giant Puffin • 21:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done The article has now been copy-edited by at least three people, so it is now "well written". The sources you claim to be unreliable are reliable, and many of their claims have been backed up by other websites. The vehicles and gadgets section now has more real-life context so that it is not purely a trivial section - • The Giant Puffin • 19:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I find most of the errors mentioned by the opposition to be incredibly small and not at all districting from the article, nor do I see them as basis to deny it featured status. Moreover, I disagree with the article not being comprehensive enough. Ganfon 02:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per all of the above mentioned concerns, and "Timothy Dalton's third film" is a really bad choice for section heading. Footnotes are not correctly formatted; see WP:CITE/ES. The article is mostly plot and trivia, short on reception and release. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you think of a better heading? ColdFusion650 11:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I changed the heading - • The Giant Puffin • 13:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think it looks okay. However, the gadget section might need a tad more work. I suggest eliminating "technical" junk, or at the very least, add spoiler tags. --Cesario (JPN) 01:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until copy-edited properly.
  • I find the use of present tense in the opening sentence awkward; it's followed by past tense, particularly in the second para. Second sentence: a film is not a screenplay.
  • "it did not win any awards"—no, "it won no awards".
  • Audit the whole thing for comma use. Here: "Critics viewed it as a modernisation of the series with Brosnan a definite improvement over his predecessor.", I don't want to read it first as "the series with Brosnan (as Bond?)", then have to reverse to comprehend the grammar. So this is required: "Critics viewed it as a modernisation of the series, with Brosnan a definite improvement over his predecessor.
  • "The film was the basis for GoldenEye 007, a flagship video game for the Nintendo 64 and revolutionary first-person shooter developed by Rareware." Was the revolutionary first-person shooter developed by Rareware? Comma to make it clear what Rareware developed?
  • "a 3-film contract"—spell out single-digit numbers.
  • "The producers cast Pierce Brosnan,[10] who was prevented from taking over the role from Roger Moore in 1985 because of his contract with Remington Steele." The tense is wrong. "Had been". Tony 04:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have fix all of the above apart from your first point. The first paragraph is in present tense because it talks about the film in general, whereas the second paragraph is a summary of its development, reaction, and influence - all events in the past. As for the screenplay point, I have changed it to "script", I hope this is an improvement - • The Giant Puffin • 09:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about the rest of the article? You really need to locate others for help. Research the edit-history pages of FAs on related topics. From the edit summaries and comparisons, identify the good copy-editors. Familiarise yourself with their work, and when you ask them for a favour, show them that you've done so (it’s a form of flattery). This is a valuable investment in a collaborative framework that will serve you well in your future development of FA nominations. Tony 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I don't even understand that. He's fixed everything listed. What do mean the rest? When he's done everything, there's nothing left. There is no rest, unless you know something not listed here. And in that case, list it, or fix it yourself. ColdFusion650 01:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have asked a few people to help copy-edit the article - • The Giant Puffin • 10:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose The syntax is badly done. Needs better copy editing - Flubeca t 00:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just made a sweep of the article and it seemed pretty good to me. I only made pretty minor adjustments. Could you point to any problems? Peter Isotalo 10:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done The article has now been copy-edited by at least three people - • The Giant Puffin • 19:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Locations"?? - Eh...that needs to be turned into prose and merged with "Filming". Also, "Vehicles and Gadgets", see about turning that to prose and trying to incorporate some real-world context into that. If you can't get a good prose out of it, at least try for the real-world context. I get that it's "a staple of the franchise", but it's also fanboyish. There needs to be some kind of real-world context, and not just "hey look what Bond drove in this film". Examples of real-world contexxt would be citing the director's decision to use the BMW Z3 over some other car.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it into two paragraphs (one for vehicles, one for gadgets) and I added a note about the three-film deal BMW had. Theres also a small note about the DB5 and the Tiger helicopter. I'll keep looking for some production-related choice for the gadgets, but I doubt anything of the kind will come up - • The Giant Puffin • 14:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks better. (I was going to comment on the locations and how to address that in the article, but you took care if it as I typed). I haven't read through the article specifically (because I owe Alientraveller's E.T. FAC a thorough read first), but I noticed you are using IMDb for a Timothy Dalton biography. I can say that using IMDb for anything other than just a list of film credits will get scrutinized as unreliable by the "regular FAC reviewers". If the biography as IanFleming.org is the same as the one on IMDb, then just ditch the IMDb citation. If there is something specific you are using from the IMDb site that isn't on the IanFleming.org site, then try and do a google key word search for what you have, and try and find something more reliable. The reason being is that IMDb doesn't list where they get their information, so it's better to have a more reliable source like a news organization, or some place where Dalton gave an interview detailing what you are using the IMDb source for.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bignole (talk • contribs)
 Done I removed the IMDb reference. The Ianfleming.org reference was more reliable, and I moved the MI6 production reference to act as a second reference. - • The Giant Puffin • 14:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've been asked to help copy-edit the article, and I will do that to the best of my ability. However, in making a preliminary review of the article, I have some suggestions and concerns to offer:
  • The release year (1995) should be mentioned in the first sentence of the lead paragraph.
  • There is a MOS standard where images are not supposed to fall directly under the section heading, which happens withe image in "Legal battles and a new Bond".
  • Not sure if the dam image (heheh, dam image) is properly placed. Maybe it can go on the right side, and the picture of Alec in the Plot section could go on the left side?
  • The tank image and its caption do not seem to fit the Plot section very well. I realize that it's an attempt to provide a free image, but the tank image should be applied in a production-type section like the BMW Z3 image has been used.
  • Are there no images available that show multiple members of the cast, including Bond, the girl, and the villain(s)?
  • Release and Reception should be combined. There is not much content for either, and if that is all that's available, then it seems like it could be combined.
  • The Soundtrack section should come before the Release/Reception sections to be in rough chronological order.
  • The Censorship section should be a subsection under Release.
  • There appear to be some references that use the Cite web template instead of the Cite news template. This should be corrected for consistency's sake.
These are just preliminary suggestions based on the article's structure. I will review the content and copy-edit wherever I can personally at a later time. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed all of them except the tank image, the cast image, and the cite news parts. I would move the tank image, but theres nowhere else for it to go, so it will probably have to go altogether. As of yet, nobody has found an approproate cast image, and I'll look through the references later. I have moved the image under "legal battles...", but I dont know if thats a suitable place either - • The Giant Puffin • 08:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done The search of a cast image is ongoing, although it looks unlikely we will find one. Other than that, those concerns have been resolved - • The Giant Puffin • 10:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some content concerns below.
  • There are several references from fan sites that do not seem acceptable as attributable sources. While I am fine with an interview with MI6, something like its trivia would not qualify. In addition, using a movie location site could be questionable because it is not a site with editorial oversight.
  • Referencing IMDb for information other than the cast/crew (which the site copies directly from a film's credits, with some minor changes) is not acceptable, either. This is user-submitted and cannot be used as an attributable source, which brings the entire "Age-suitable ratings" section into question. For awards, while I don't question that these are true, I'm sure it's absolutely possible to directly reference the award sites for these nominations instead of IMDb.
  • I have to join the ongoing concern about the "Vehicles and gadgets" section. While it may seem like common sense that vehicles and gadgets are a staple of the 007 franchise, their significance would need to be explained in each article, as it should be assumed that it is a new topic for the reader. After the first paragraph in this section, the information basically describes what is used in the film with no indication of any real-world context. This and this do not seem to be attributable sources, either.
  • Why is a minor review being used to support information in "Modernising the series"?
  • I think the Reception subsection could be revised to explain in more detail what was liked and disliked about the film. What stood out to me most were the Time and Entertainment Weekly reviews that never really say exactly why they didn't like GoldenEye. Is there any criticism, positive or negative, about the film's plot, the action scenes, Judi Dench as M, etc.?
  • The Production section seems to me to be out of order. My first impression was that the franchise was placed on hold because of License to Kill, but the reference only points to its box office information and no actual evidence that it was an influence. (At least, for me, it seems placed to imply that its failure hindered the continuation of the franchise.) I'm trying to best explain how the Production section could be better presented. I think a big part of it is that the writing and content is choppy. Featured film articles are supposed to be the best that Wikipedia has to offer, and I'm not sure if a mere copy-edit will improve it.
—Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to find a link to past BAFTA nominees, but the Saturn Awards website only provides past winners. I'll keep looking for that, as well as trying to improve your other concerns. I have a book that I used to cite the Z3 information, it should hold some real-life context on the other vehicles. As for the gadgets, I'll have to look across the internet for any production notes on those - • The Giant Puffin • 10:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have also rearranged the production section, and removed the trivia and movie location website have been replaced with more reliable sources. I extended the rectption section to include some more specific praise and criticism, and it now contains a paragraph about the reaction to the film's attempt to modernise the series (which now contains references from a major review) - • The Giant Puffin • 20:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nicely written, plot section goes into too much detail for my taste though. Anynobody 06:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Cause there have been people complaining that I took too much out, that it needs expanding. ColdFusion650 12:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still oppose. Despite the claim that much more copy-editing has been done, it's not good enough. Let's look at the opening few sentences as an example:

"GoldenEye is a 1995 spy film that is the 17th installment in the James Bond film series. Actor Pierce Brosnan portrays MI6 agent James Bond for the first time in GoldenEye, succeeding Timothy Dalton in License to Kill (1989). Unlike previous James Bond films, the screenplay was not based on a work by Bond creator Ian Fleming. The story was instead conceived and written by Michael France, with collaboration from several other writers."

    • "GoldenEye (1995)is the 17th film in the James Bond spy series.", or something like it, might be a more succinct opening, without "film" twice.
    • Did Brosnan succeed Dalton in License to Kill? That's what it says.
    • "Screenplay" vs "story" - unnecessary distinction. Try "Unlike previous James Bond films, the screenplay was not based on a work by Bond creator Ian Fleming, but was conceived and written by Michael France,..."
    • "Collaboration by".

I've received unhelpful comments on my talk page about this one. Despite that, I'm applying the same standards as I do for all FACs here. Tony 14:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the problems you mentioned. As for the rest of the article, I asked a few people to copy-edit the article, and a lot of changes have been made. If the article is still badly written, then I dont know how it could be solved. Several people, including myself, have read through all of the article and a lot of the wording has been changed. If you still feel the article is unacceptable, then maybe you could make a few alterations. I will read through it again, just in case, as some of the copy-editing did not improve the situation too much - • The Giant Puffin • 20:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Here are my initial assessments, it basically stops at the last paragraph of the Production section. All return when I've had a chance to finish going through the whole article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Could the opening be written better? Something like "Goldeneye is a 1995 spy film directed by Martin Campbell, and the 17th installment in the James Bond film series."
    1. Could probably remove the "in Goldeneye", as we just introduced the film's name in the preceding sentence. Also, I'd replace a couple of the "Goldeneye"s with "the film" or something similar; it becomes redundant to continually say the film's title each time. Maybe change "Goldeneye was the first Bond film.." to "The film was the first in the Bond series to be made after...", and then I'd probably bring up the last "paragraph" into the second, as it's just two sentences.
  2. Production - maybe change "made" to "produced", as EON didn't make anything, they just funded Campbell and France, and the other writers and crew to "make" it.
    1. Maybe merge "Writing" with the general production information, because it seems to be a weak (weak as it not a lot of information) section, and could probably go right after the introduction of Campbell as director.
    2. Modernising the series - this section seems more about how people reacted to trying to modernize and how the film was finally responded to when it was released. This seems less to do with production, and more to do with "reception". If you move that section, you could probably do away with the "writing", "filming" "legal battle" sub headers, and have one section for production, since all of the sub sections are not that large themselves. Then, I'd probably put the info on the legal battle first, followed by the Albert Broccoli info, then the writing, and last the filming. (that's IMO) It would also help with the images breaking through the sections.
  3. Bond also drives an Aston Martin DB5 near the beginning of the film, a reference to the original DB5 used in Goldfinger - No source that says this is a reference to Goldfinger. Drawing conclusions based on observations is original research.
  4. Vehicles and Gadgets - "GoldenEye was the first film bound by BMW's three picture deal,[30] so producers were offered BMW's latest roadster, the BMW Z3. It was featured in the film months before its release, and a limited edition "007 model" sold out within a day of being available to order. As part of the car's marketing strategy, several Z3's were used to drive journalists from a complimentary meal at the Rainbow Room restaurant to GoldenEye's premiere at Radio City Music Hall" = this is good, it has real world context
    1. Everything else in that section is entirely in-universe, with no real world context whatsoever = that's not so good.
  5. Images - Do we have to have a picture of Brosnan that literally breaks through 3 sections? Is there a better image, or maybe more information? It's free, which is great, but it's a little big for the area. The same goes for the bridge image. It's a good image, but it's a little large. It also breaks into 3 sections. That says to me that either your image is still large, or you don't have enough information. It's free, so we don't have to worry about providing a FU rationale for its use, but per WP:IMAGE-"Images should be large enough to reveal relevant detail without overwhelming the surrounding article text". I think these two kind of overwhelm the 6 sections they force themselves into. I'm not saying we have to get rid of them, just that their use/placement/lack of surrounding text concerns me.
I have fixed all of those concerns, except for the gadgets section. I combined and rearranged the production section, moving the images around whilst doing so. I also tweaked the intro a bit, and removed the original research from the vehicles section. However, not much real-life context is available for the vehicles. I added the information about the Z3, which was mainly available because of its use in marketing the film, which wasnt the same for the DB5 or other vehicles. As for the gadgets, I doubt any production-related decisions or real-life context is available at all. All I can think of is to completelty scrap the section altogether, but that would leave a small paragraph specifically about the Z3 - • The Giant Puffin • 20:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has to be a way to take that information (because I understand that it is a staple of the franchise) and merge it with something else so that it isn't lost entirely. Even if you do "scrap it altogether", the small bit about the Z3 can go in the production section. You could take those two paragraphs of Z3 info and condense them into 1 concise paragraph that mentions their deal with BMW, and what the film makers decided to do to the BMW for the film (e.g. what they added to it). We probably don't need to have the "appears at the beginning of the film" bit. Say something more like "For the film, the Z3 was given ......"  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the Z3 information to Production, I put it in before the filming part. But that still leaves the vehices and gadgets section with no real-life context. There's not really anything to merge it with, and even if there were, there would still be the question of its relevance and the reliability of the source backing most of it up - • The Giant Puffin • 21:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could move it all to the talk page and leave a note saying that real-world content needs to be found for it. This way it's still visible to people who come to the article, but it doesn't inhibit the FAC. If you do go that way, I'd also leave a note saying not to archive that information when archives are performed. What I noticed now is that the production section is overrun with images. It could probably be fine with only two, three at the most, depending on the placement and which you pick. The free ones are always your best bet to keep, although the Hammer/Sickle image is used to illustrate a theme for the film. I'd probably say remove the bridge image, and move the BMW information to the bottom of section, this way you give yourself some breathing room before you get another image.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rearranged the production section a bit, dropped the dam image, and put a note on the talk page about the vehicles and gadgets section - • The Giant Puffin • 12:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that looks much smoother now. Alright, the first chance I can get to really sit down and go through the article line by line (if I can I'll make any c/e changes as I go) I will. Good work so far.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/GoldenEye/archive2&oldid=1138461750"