Talk:The Living Daylights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article The Living Daylights has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Living Daylights article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives


[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 28, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Language is clear and easy to understand, GAN would pass here. Please change the Cast section from a bulletted list to some kind of box, see The Terminator for a good example.
N Not required at all, especially if character descriptions exist. Vikrant Phadkay 16:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Factually accurate?: The entire Plot section, though interesting, is lacking a single source. Please address this by finding WP:RS sources and cite w/ WP:CIT, and cut out anything else in that section that is unsourced. Filming section appears short on sources as well.
N Filming will be managed, but never has there been any need of sources for anything that can be seen in the film itself. Keep this in mind the next time you review a film. Vikrant Phadkay 16:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Broad in coverage?: Most of the article is complete, however the Reception section is quite short compared to the rest. Can you find more sources to expand this, even just one or two?
4. Neutral point of view?: Article is written in neutral wording, would pass GAN here.
5. Article stability? Looking back several months I see some minor anon editing, but the talk page (that I just archived to have a permanent link location in the article history box for the previous GAN fail) looks befeft of editing conflicts. Would pass GAN here too.
6. Images?: Passes here, 1 WikiCommons image and 4 other detailed fair use rationale images.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. —

Essentially, if you can provide sourcing to WP:RS sources for the Plot, format the Cast section as I ask above, and perhaps expand the Reception section with one or two more sources, this should pass as a GA. Message me on my talk page if/when you have done so. Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
    • Sourcing is not necessary in plot sections, unless there are no copies of the film itself to view. Films act as their own primary source when it comes to this type of information, as you can easily view the film and say "this didn't happen". So long as there is not any original research in the plot section, like qualifying a character or something, then it's fine.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict, thanks, Bigs) This is an issue that's come up a few times before, and basically, the plot summary is a recitation of the primary source (film, TV show, etc). That's the implicit sourcing. Some may decry it as original research, but we already summarize content from secondary sources in Wikipedia articles. The way we present it is "original", but there's no personal argument that's being put forth. The most important part of writing plot summaries is to ensure their neutral tone. To best address this, editors should independently look at it. Assumptive items like trying to read a character's emotions should be avoided -- basically, just keep to a descriptive outline of the plot. Interpretations can be placed in ensuing sections that cover real-world context, as the plot summaries complement such sections. Hope this helps. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
      • There's not much to be said that Bignole and Erik haven't mentioned. (It probably bears clarifying the point under our style guidelines, however...) Girolamo Savonarola 17:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Passed

  • Thank you all for coming so fast when I asked for another opinion, and per the other GA requirements above I will now pass this article as a GA. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 19:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Sean Bean never auditioned for Bond

"Q. How much fun is it to play a Bond villain? Sean Bean: I love it. It's more fun to play the bad guy. 006 was such an interesting character and the film really explored his friendship with Bond and how it all went wrong, so it was a very personal journey for both characters. And to quell the rumors, I never auditioned for the role of Bond."

http://www.compleatseanbean.com/mainfeatures-136.html

What's the source for the claim that any of the others did? 69.220.2.188 (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed Sean Bean from the casting section. El Greco(talk) 01:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)