Talk:Production of Watchmen (2009 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: María (habla conmigo) 20:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll be reviewing this article for GA-status. I'm a huge fan of the graphic novel and the film adaptation, so hopefully we can get this article to where it needs to be. :) Here is how it stands against the criteria:

Well-written: Yes.
Factually accurate and verifiable: Yes, although see below for concerns.
Broad in its coverage: Yes, although see below.
Neutral: Yes.
Stable: Yes.
Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.

Overall, the article is excellent; well written, well researched and well presented. I do, however, see some confusion as to what this article is supposed to be about -- as it is now, the article's title does not differentiate between the development for the original comic series and the film, and the lead does not initially make this clear, either. Because the lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article (per WP:LEAD), the current description of the series in the first paragraph is out of place and unnecessary. I suggest making it clear not only in the title of the article itself, but also in the first sentence, that this page is about the development of the Watchmen film. Perhaps move the page to Development of Watchmen film adaptation, or something similar, and refocus the lead with a descriptive, engaging lead sentence describing the topic at hand. If a description of the source material is necessary, than it needs to also be described in the article itself, per lead guidelines.

Specific concerns

That Watchmen is linked under "The series" in the second sentence is unfortunate and confusing for the person who may want to readily find the page for the source material; hopefully this is something that can be fixed while taking my above suggestions into consideration.
I fixed the dashes throughout to make them consistent.[1] Make sure to check I didn't miss one. :)
Citations referring to David Hughes' "Who Watches the Watchmen? – How The Greatest Graphic Novel of Them All Confounded Hollywood" in The Greatest Sci-Fi Movies Never Made need to be made clearer per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Not only does the specific edition used need to be cited, but the specific page numbers as well; you can use any number of short hand citation style, as long as it's consistent and clearly presentable. We have the 2001 edition available at my library, so it shouldn't be difficult to get a copy.
Speaking of books, the book listed above is the only print source used in the article as of now. Have others been consulted? From a quick Worldcat search, I see Watchmen: The Art of the Film and Watchmen: The Film Companion, although there may be others. If these have been checked into and found superfluous, that's fine.
I'm used to seeing External Links, especially in articles devoted to films; is there a reason there aren't any here? (Note: I'm not advocating their addition, I'm merely curious as to their absence.)
Website publishers, such as WatchmenComicMovie.com and comingsoon.net, should not be italicized; magazines and periodicals, however, should.

Everything else looks fine; it's a very interesting article, and a good counterpart to the film's page. I'm going to put the nomination on hold for a week until my concerns have been addressed. I'm mainly concerned about the status of the lead and the article's title, although of course source quality, consistency and formatting should be addressed before I'm ready to promote. Let me know if you have any questions, María (habla conmigo) 20:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved to Development of Watchmen (film) (my original title, actually, they eventually changed) and rewrote the lead to make it more clear. Removed italics and specified the edition in the refs. I don't know what could enter external links, so that's why it doesn't exist. Anything else? igordebraga ≠ 02:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good progress so far, but my concerns regarding David Hughes' book (which still requires specific page numbers) and whether other published sources such as the ones noted above may be considered as possible additional references have not been addressed. The latter isn't important, and can simply be taken into account for future purposes, but the citations pointing to Hughes must list page numbers for verifiability purposes. María (habla conmigo) 19:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Development of Watchmen (film) does not need to be disambiguated. Before the film, there was no article called "Development of Watchmen". Instead, a hatnote should point to Watchmen#Background and creation. Wherever this article is linked, it should already be clear that readers will be going to an article about the film's development. There is nothing we're disambiguating from here. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Erik, maybe I didn't make myself clear; my suggestion to rename this article was so that it's clear from the onset that the title refers to the development of the film. It really has nothing to do with disambiguation, but everything to do with choosing the most recognizable article title per WP:TITLE. While the use of "(film)" may not be the best choice under the circumstances (see my suggestions above), I still feel that simply using "Development of Watchmen" is misleading and vague. Also, might context may not be so very apparent everywhere this article is linked, since many of the pages would of course refer to both the film and its source material? María (habla conmigo) 17:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the issue with using "(film)" is that the film is not called Development of Watchmen. :) Too bad there is no consensus for using italics in article names for these articles... I'm not sure if further clarification is needed beyond Development of Watchmen. Of the graphic novel and the film, the term "development" will always pertain to the film. That's why we have "Background and creation" at Watchmen. There is similar precedent with list articles at Category:Lists of awards by film; we don't disambiguate for films whose titles would by themselves by disambiguated. Actually, reviewing the article, "Development" is not accurate since it is more than development. The article title ought to be something like "Production of Watchmen" or "Production history of Watchmen", which are both even more film-centric. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

← I also have to add that this sub-article was inappropriately split from Watchmen (film). Reviewing the film's main article, the "Development" section (which really should be "Production" section) does not have a summary section of this sub-article. This is a serious misstep because there is no overview of the actual filmmaking involved. I hope that the splitter/creator will fix this issue, especially with the film's main article being a Good Article. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear. Thank you, Erik, I hadn't even considered this particular issue while reviewing for GA. Seeing as how this article has already been on hold for a week, do you believe it should be failed until the remaining issues -- now including your own concerns -- have been addressed? María (habla conmigo) 19:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that this particular article is fine, but the main article just needs a summary section and not just the pre-Snyder details. I'll mention the issue at Talk:Watchmen (film). Igordebraga, any chance you can fix this? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I rewrote the Development section of the main article, and even moved the page to Production of Watchmen, as you suggested. But is the sourcing problem still up? igordebraga ≠ 23:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please add page numbers for Hughes' book. María (habla conmigo) 00:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally found a way to do it... igordebraga ≠ 03:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, thanks so much; the article is much more academically sound as it is now, I hope you agree. That last issue resolved, I'm happy to promote this article to GA-status. Thanks for all your hard work, Igordebraga (and to Erik for his input, of course) -- congrats! :) María (habla conmigo) 12:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]