Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Resident Evil: Apocalypse/archive1

< 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 promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2018 [1].

Resident Evil: Apocalypse

edit
Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an awesomely stupid film from the Resident Evil franchise. The article was promoted to GA in 2008 by someone else who no longer edits Wikipedia. I thought it fell embarrassingly short of GA standards when I stumbled across it (this is what it looked like at the beginning of this month: [2]) so I blew it up and wrote it again. The article has since received a peer review and a copy edit from GOCE. I now believe it meets the standards for FAC. Freikorp (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarastro1. Just my incorrigible impatience again :). Five Six votes of support, a source review and an image check. Would you like anything further? Freikorp (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Slightlymad

edit
  • "critics" doesn't need wikilinking in the lead
  • "At a separate location, Valentine, Wells, and news reporter, Terri Morales, are about to be..." → reduce comma splice by ditching the one that goes after news reporter
  • I don't intend to list them all but there are a decent amount of quotation fragments in the prose whose terminal punctuation should be placed outside. For instance, in Themes section: "it stops short of challenging them and, indeed, often deploys them."
  • The photos are captioned with complete sentences so add them with periods.
  • "Anderson said that he began writing" → remove "that" to improve textual flow
  • "The sequel was officially greenlit by Sony in mid-2002, however, Anderson" → change "however" into "but" sans the comma that's bolded. "However" should only be used in circumstances where it's unavoidable
  • "The character Claire Redfield was originally to appear in the film portrayed by Gina Philips, however, she eventually turned down" → same as above
  • Cinematographers Christian Sebaldt and Derek Rogers should be mentioned somewhere in Filming section. The British Film Institute can be used as source
  • "The site's Critics Consensus reads:" → no uppercase on CC please, it's just simply the status quo...
  • "Based on 124 reviews, the film holds an approval rating of 21% on Rotten Tomatoes, giving it the lowest rating of the six films in the series." → Unsourced
  • Ditch the summary statements in Critical response unless you can provide sources for them.
  • Paraphrase Dave Kehr's and Roger Ebert's input
  • Home media should not be its own section because it is a scope of the Release section.

Happy to pass once attended. Slightlymad 12:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your comments Slightlymad. I've attempted to address everything, with the exception of removing the topic sentences in critical response. I was asked to add them during the peer review, and it's my understanding that such sentences are quite common and are covered by the sources in the rest of the paragraph. Happy to hear more comments on why they should be removed though. Freikorp (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RECEPTION as it states quite clearly that you must be vigilante to avoid OR in those sentences, and it makes total sense since WP requires verifiability, not truth. Slightlymad 01:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Slightlymad: OK, removed. Freikorp (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Good luck with this. Slightlymad 01:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

edit

I confess this article feels more GA than FA; the writing isn't great in places. I can't commit to a full review, but hopefully these comments will help:

  • "At a separate location, Valentine, Wells, and news reporter, Terri Morales, are about to be overrun, but for Alice who comes to their rescue." Clumsy.
  • Reworded
  • "Umbrella dispatches an experimental supersoldier, Nemesis, for testing." Do you mean "deploys"?
  • Fixed
  • "he is Matt Addison, following a genetic mutation." This should be rephrased.
  • I don't see the problem, and accordingly don't know what kind of rephrase would be an improvement. Happy to hear more feedback about this sentence.
  • "Writing for the journal Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media, Stephen Harper" Are you sure? That's an academic rather than journalistic source. The citation should probably be changed, too.
  • I've removed that is a 'journal', let me know if you think describing is as a 'academic journal' would be more appropriate. I've reformatted is with Cite:journal as well.
  • My point is that one doesn't really write for a journal in the way that one writes for a magazine or newspaper. I'd just say something like "The media studies scholar Stephen Harper" and not bother mentioning the journal in the prose. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "characters in Apocalypse, both" Italics!
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • "That same year, Adam Seeback from The Nerd Stash said that while he did not consider any films in the series to be good, he considered Apocalypse to be the most enjoyable.[14]" Reliable?
  • Removed
  • "Both Blu-ray.com and High-Def Digest gave the Blu-ray release three stars out of five for video quality and 3½ stars for special features.[55][56]" Reliable?
  • I've used them as successful FAC's in the past, so I'm inclined to wait for additional comments on them at this stage
  • "A novelization of the film was written by Keith DeCandido.[48]" I'm not really keen on the short paragraph; would it not make sense to bundle this into the marketing section and lose the "related media" thing? I'd mention the publisher and publication date, too.
  • Done
  • "An exclusive sneak peek scene" Informal; sounds like an ad
  • Good point; reworded.

Good luck with the review. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments J Milburn. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Sources review

edit
  • There are numerous italicisation issues. You need to work through the reflist and de-italicise those sources (e.g British Film Institute, BoxOffice Mojo, MSN and many others) that are not initially from print media. Italics should be used for sources such as The New York Times, The Village Voice and other newspapers, magazines and journals.
  • I think I've got them all now. :)
  • Consistency is required in use of retrieval dates. It's not clear what principle is currently being used.
  • Fixed. Only half a dozen sources were using retrieval dates (they were added by someone else) so I just removed them.
  • Ref 23: What makes this (Mr X) a reliable high quality source?
  • It isn't. I only really added it so readers could link to the actually company and read more about it since the company doesn't have a wikilink. The fact that Mr X did special effects is backed up by the other source so I've just removed the Mr X source and have left the prose unchanged.
  • Ref 39 is apparently identical to 17
  • Merged
  • Ref 52 uses a non-standard archive date format.
  • Fixed

Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Brianboulton. Your source review is much appreciated as always. Freikorp (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

edit
  • For this sentence (It is the second installment in the Resident Evil film series, which is based on the video game series Resident Evil.), I would revise the final part to read as follows (which is based on the video game series of the same name) to avoid the repetition of Resident Evil.
  • Done.
  • For this part (The films marks Witt's feature directorial debut), I assume you mean “The film” instead of “The films”.
  • Yep that's what I meant; done.
  • For this part (Directly after the events of the first film,), I would move the link for “the first film” to this earlier part in the lead (Anderson, the director of the first film,).
  • Done.
  • I would rephrase this sentence (Directly after the events of the first film, where the heroine Alice escapes an underground facility overrun by zombies, Alice bands together with other survivors to escape the zombie outbreak, which has now infected the fictional Raccoon City.) to avoid the repetition of Alice. I would also try to make the information read more smoothly.
  • I've reworded it. Hopefully it reads better now.
  • Do you need the word “heroine” in the lead?
  • Removed.
  • The word “film” appears a lot in the lead so I would suggest some variation.
  • Removed three instances.
  • I would change the word “criticized” in the phrase “from critics who criticized the plot” to avoid having variations of the word “criticize/critics” in such close proximity.
  • Reworded.
  • I do not believe that the Jovovich image is really necessary for this article. It seems more decorative and does not seem to really illustrate anything in particular.
  • It is decorative, but I've always believed articles are improved with decorative pictures. I'm inclined to leave it as it is unless it gets further criticism.
  • For this sentence (Milla Jovovich confirmed her character would return in the sequel if the first film was successful), you could only use her last name as you already introduced the actress in the same paragraph.
  • Fixed.
  • I would revise this part (The character Claire Redfield was originally to appear in the film portrayed by Gina Philips), as the placement of this phrase “portrayed by Gina Philips” directly after “the film” reads rather awkwardly.
  • Done.
  • I would revise the entire sentence (The character Claire Redfield was originally to appear in the film portrayed by Gina Philips but she eventually turned down the role which was then given to Emily Bergl, who left before production began.) as it reads awkwardly.
  • I've reworded it. Hopefully it reads better now.
  • For this part (The character was dropped,), the citations are out of order.
  • Done.
  • In this phrase (and filming took place at forty-seven locations), do you think that “forty-seven” should be written as “47”?
  • Done.
  • For this part (The introduction of Resident Evil 3: Nemesis), please link the title.
  • Done.
  • For this part (C.O.R.E. won the contract to animate the Lickers), I would use the full title of the company (i.e. C.O.R.E. Digital Pictures).
  • Done.
  • In this part (though her insurance company would not allow her to attempt several of the more dangerous ones), could you clarify what is meant by the “more dangerous ones”?
  • Wouldn't you assume in an action film some stunts are more dangerous than others? I am aware from the DVD's special features of only two scenes that Jovovich used a stunt double for. One where her character runs down a building while attached to a rappelling harness and the scene mentioned in the above section "where Alice runs through a building while an Umbrella helicopter fires". Would you like me to explicitly mention one of these scenes in this section?
  • I was just curious if there was anything in particular (i.e. a major action scene in the film or something of the like) that may help clarify this point as it sounded like a rather vague sentence that, like you mentioned above, could be applied to pretty much any action film. It seems fine to me as it currently stands, but I just wanted to ask this as a clarification question more than anything else. Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (Soundtrack.net gave the score 2½ stars out of five), I would include the reviewer’s name.
  • Done.
  • In this part (By May 2004 the teaser had), I would add a comma after “2004”.
  • Done.
  • In this part (In 2017, Michael Nordine of TheWrap), I would italicize “TheWrap”.
  • Done.

Wonderful work with this article. Once all of my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to promote this. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look through my FAC. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day or night. Aoba47 (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Aoba47. I've made replies to everything. Please let me know if you'd like any further work done. I'll get to your review soon. :) Freikorp (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber

edit

...taking a look now. (I didn't mind this film...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have 3 sentences in 1st para of lead starting "It..." - need to change it up a bit.
The film borrows elements from several games in the Resident Evil series, such as the villain Nemesis. - sentence comes over a bit weird with only one example.
In the previous film, former security operative Alice and environmental activist Matt Addison escape from the Hive, an underground genetic research facility that was the source of a zombie outbreak. - given we are talking about the current film, this sentence should be in the past tense.
Alice and Addison were both taken into custody by Umbrella - might be better as "The film ended with Alice and Addison being taken into custody by Umbrella" (so we know that was the last bit of the previous film)
Umbrella send a team to re-open and investigate what happened in the Hive, but it is overpowered by zombies who quickly spread through the surrounding Raccoon City. - the team is the object of the first clause but the subject of the second - would be better if it were the subject of both or sentence split.
I split the sentence with a semicolon. I'm not good at this kind of stuff. Let me know if you have a suggested rewording Casliber. Freikorp (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... to fight zombie attacks - one would either "fight zombies" or "repel zombie attacks" or something...
I also remember the DVD where they had alternate material/deleted scenes...I recall a storyline where the Terri Morales character was addicted to pills..? Evolution of the script is important and worth including.
I went through all the deleted scenes again. There was one scene showing Terri taking a single pill on set after she gives the weather report and a second scene later where she drops her pills and Alice tells her not to take them as they're bad for her. It didn't seem like it was ever a major part or even much of a sub-plot. I did go through the additional commentary track, in which Anderson talks about two of the deleted scenes which can be viewed on the DVD. I added coverage from one of them, as well as new information on several aspects of the film. Freikorp (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Umbrella deploys an experimental supersoldier, Nemesis, for testing. Nemesis kills the remaining STARS members. - these sentences are too short.
I've expanded it a little, let me know if you'd like more. I'm not sure which part would be improved by fleshing it out. Freikorp (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, last thing - it isn't clear for a neophyte reader that a supersoldier is a monster - something on that briefly would be good. Then I think we're done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: I've described him as a 'heavily-mutated experimental supersoldier', and I've reworded the later description of him so that 'heavily-mutated' doesn't appear twice. Let me know if that's not enough. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
perfect. thanks 02:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

more later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your comments Casliber. I enjoyed this film as well. Between myself and Homeostasis an attempt has been made to address all the prose concerns; let me know if any need further work. I ordered the DVD to write the article; I went through the special features when I got it but didn't find that storyline you mentioned. It might be on one of the cast/crew commentaries (there are 3, and I only listened to 2 of them; it's hard to watch a film 3 times in a row even if you do like it). I'll have another look through the DVD after I get home tomorrow. I'm currently away for the new years celebration; I took my laptop with me but not the DVD. Freikorp (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: I've now addressed everything. Freikorp (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Homeostasis07

edit
Sorry for butting in at this point, but I'd been reading the article for the past couple of hours and decided to be bold and make a couple of changes myself. Probably would've been better to take it all here first, but I have the flu and don't currently have the brain capacity to explain what it was I wanted changed. But as far as prose goes, I believe the article from Themes onward is spot-on. I couldn't see anything from that point onwards that needed changing. The only issues I had were in the Plot section, but they were fairly minor – clarity and consistency – and I think I resolved most of them anyway. There are just two sentences in the third paragraph I couldn't take care of myself: "Valentine and Morales continue, picking up stranded civilian L.J. along the way" I don't know why, but this just rolls off my tongue the wrong way, but I couldn't rephrase it and avoid having "L.J.." or "L.J.," appear, which just look even worse. Also, "Angela reveals that the zombie outbreak is the result of a virus created by her father to treat the genetic disease from which she suffers" — I'm sure this could also be re-arranged a better way, but I have Kristen Schaal from The Last Man on Earth screaming "'Out for what do you need that gun'?" in my head; you know, ending sentences with prepositions and all that.
So, with this in mind, maybe @J Milburn: may want to take another look at the article. And, sorry, @Casliber:, I believe my edit completely stepped on the toes of your comments above; some of those issues still present (ending the first Plot paragraph with "The film ended with..." is a good idea), but I inadvertently resolved most of your points. Anyway, sorry for rambling. Happy to support this article for promotion. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your edits and support Homeostasis07. I think the L.J. sentence was reading awkwardly because it rhymed; I've reworded accordingly. I'm having some trouble thinking of a way to reword the other sentence at the moment. I'll take another look at it later. Freikorp (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, @Homeostasis07: I saw your changes as an improvement. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Let There Be Sunshine

edit

This is my first review for any GA/FA/FL. :) Some minor suggestions listing down:

  • In the lead, Carlos Olivera is directly linked, but in Plot and Cast it's a redirect. Could follow a consistent style, I would prefer the former.
  • Don't forget to use non-breaking space between numbers and units (do not use in infobox).
  • In Pre-production, Sony → Sony Pictures
  • In box office, link "$" in $23 million and unlink from $129,394,835
  • In box office, UK → United Kingdom
  • All the above have been fixed.
  • In the second sentence in box office, it is said that the film performed well in some countries and lackluster in Sweden, but without the box office numbers that sentence looks vague. Is there any way you could find the figures ?
  • I found the figures and added them. I also inadvertently found some other box office results in the process and added those as well.
  • In Critical response, BOMB → bomb
  • Done.
  • In Home media, rating in Blu-ray.com is user generated, better remove it.
  • Done.
  • How is Category:German film relevant here ?
  • Not sure who added that. Removed.
  • In image alt texts, replace "brunette woman" and "Caucasian man" with their names. Present text is similar to the Queen's example. Need to rewrite to something in the line of "Paul W. S. Anderson seated in front of a microphone and looking sideways" or "photograph of Milla Jovovich looking straight to the camera".
  • Reworded.

The article looks good to me. Good work. Will pass this once these concerns are addressed. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your review Let There Be Sunshine. I've tried to address everything. Freikorp (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with the corrections. I support this nomination. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ProtoDrake

edit

I didn't think I'd read a film article I'd enjoy quite this much. Many of the issues I might have raised have been addressed above. I'll happy give my Support to this nomination. Congrats, Freikorp. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. :) Freikorp (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Resident_Evil:_Apocalypse/archive1&oldid=820479726"