Article once rejected in the FA, that just needs a cleanup. Tell me what's wrong in here. igordebraga ≠ 19:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Soon I'm going to be opposing FACs for articles where raster images are in use for content more correctly displayed using vector graphics in the SVG format. The 007 logo on your page would fit that criteria, but since the logo is so simple, I decided that rather than nag you to install Inkscape, I would just convert it. The work took me about 1.5 minutes. Also, I noticed that many of your images are not very big. Where to find larger images is a common question asked in the wikipedia mailbox. .. and since our software autoscales you should always use the larges images possible. Generally I like to see images at least 1200 pixels wide, and preferably wider. I would not oppose an FAC for that alone, esp as in your case all of the images are non-free, so the size doesn't matter, just remember for other articles. :) On that note, there is a large nuber of non-free images in the article, I understand the subject is difficult to cover with free images, but it would be highly desirable to have at least a few so if the article were stripped of the nonfree (for example, for distribution in a country without fair use) that it would still have some illustrations. --Gmaxwell 01:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And in the text, any problems? igordebraga ≠ 13:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it needs more than a 'clean up'; it needs more depth. James Bond films were prominent examples of a particular genre of film. Tell us more about that genre, and the role of JB films in it. How has it influenced subsequent films of a similar type? More information from behind the scenes would be interesting. Please change your approach to itty-bitty paragraphing. Tony 14:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC) Oh, and by the way, what about something on the stratified, traditional gender roles and attitudes to women in these films; it's something that really dates JB films, so it needs to be discussed.[reply]