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

Hey all, I'll be the one reviewing this article, just give me a little time and I'll bring to you something more comprehensive. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 18:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'm back. There are a few things that need to be addressed on this article from what I have seen so far, but it largely satisfies GA criteria.

• Well, I've noticed a number of long, windy sentences throughout the article; if you read through the article a few times and search for sentences with that point in mind, you may be able to find these sentences and break them down into more stomachable passages. You could also consult the peer review volunteer list for some general copyeditors who would be willing to help you out.

1. I tried to shorten a few of the sentences, hopefully they're more stomachable now ;^). Let me know if you think more work should be done. -- WikiGuy86 (talk) 21:22, 01 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, you didn't really resolve the problem, although I could see you strove for it. I meant breaking each long sentence into several shorter ones. I'll read through the article again and help in the copyediting process. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 23:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The AccessAtlanta.com's references (Ref 22 at the time of this review) was deleted by the website; I'd just delete it and replace it with a more reliable newspaper source. The Chicago Tribune works good for me.
  • Update I took the liberty to search for a link, and I found one; if you want, you can use it if you wish as a replacement for the Atlanta link. You could also search "ATL film <name of newspaper>" in Google and you'll find other results. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 08:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I checked the AccessAtlanta.com site reference, and it seemed to be functional. Maybe the site just wasn't working at the moment. -- WikiGuy86 (talk) 21:22, 01 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Huh, strange. I always seem to run into that kind of problem whenever I check Wikipedia refs. It's actually quite funny sometimes when I realize that the site goes back online shortly after I label a reference as dead and delete it. Whatever the case, this is no longer a problem. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 23:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking of which, all newspaper names (Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes included) should be italicized, which isn't too hard.

1. All newspaper names and critical reference points have been italicized. -- WikiGuy86 (talk) 21:22, 01 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• While not exactly required by GA criteria, I don't think it'd hurt if you expanded on information about the "ATL production notes" link at the bottom of the page.

1. Well, what I meant here was to give a short description of what the website provides for those who are searching for it. It doesn't really even need to be a complete sentence. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 23:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the only problems I observe at the moment. Nice work so far on this article. You can cross out and comment on what I have put up here as you wish, and be sure to contact me if you have questions. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 08:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look through the article and copyedited it, and I think I fixed most of its problems. What do you think?

In the Reception section, however, I removed all the user ratings because those aren't really accepted as valid on Wikipedia film articles (as far as I know), so I just wanted to clear that up. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 05:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Thanks, the edits you made look great. And thanks for letting me know about the user ratings, I'll try to remember that for future reference. -- WikiGuy86 (talk) 08:17, 07 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, no problem. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 23:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this is almost ready. All you need to do is size down each image in the article to a point where one of the pixel dimensions are below 300 (For example, 200x300), and this will be a pass. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 23:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I gave a bad example; you need to downsize it a little bit more (it needs to be below 300 pixels). I apologize for not being clear. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 01:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually talking about this. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 01:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it looks like you are good. Nice work, and good luck in the future. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 23:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]