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

Reviewer: Biggs Pliff (talk · contribs) 21:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Review  Completed - Biggs Pliff (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• "takes place years after"- I found a source that says it is six years, I would include this, if correct, to make the phrase less vague.
  • I don't recall the film itself ever stating this. Which source did you find the info in? Sock (tock talk) 04:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was on imdb, but I thought it might be mentioned in the moivie, if not forget it. Biggs Pliff (talk)
• The phrase "ignited the arrival" is not really used in English to my knowledge, it should be changed to either "sparked the arrival" or "led to the arrival..."
  • Fixed. Sock (tock talk) 04:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed it "a to NASA probe crash in Mexico which led to". A small edit but I think it sounds better. Biggs Pliff (talk)
• Sequel was not released on 28, November.

Grammatically fine. To be pedantic the recommended word range is 400-700 and this is just below that, is there another relevant plot point which could be included? Maybe the chronological ending being shown at the beginning of the film deserves a mention here.

I rewatched the film today and there are very few events that are particularly significant to the plot. I don't personally think that including the chronological ending at the beginning of the summary is appropriate, since it's included in production and would just be confusing if it was explained at the beginning of the summary. Sock (tock talk) 04:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it is close enough I think. Biggs Pliff (talk)

There is no need for the staff list to be at the beginning of this section, it is already in the infobox. It should be removed.

Fixed. This was habitual, since I've been adding these for other articles where it is appropriate. I agree though, the crew is far too small to warrant that list. Sock (tock talk) 04:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In the "Development" section, there is a quote; "not going to be special anymore", that isn't directly referenced. The source does appear at the end of the paragraph but to be safe I would put it at the end of that quote as well. I'll get a second opinion to check if it is actually necessary.
  • I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it is advised not to use the same reference twice in a row, and just place it at the end of the paragraph. I'll be happy to change it if another editor agrees, though. Sock (tock talk) 04:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, leave it as it is. Biggs Pliff (talk)
• In the "Filming" section, "Many settings featured in the film were real locations" is vague, isn't this true of essentially every film? Unless the scene is entirely CGI, everywhere is a "real location". What is the phrase supposed to mean?
  • Fixed the wording. The main point was that they filmed in places without permission. Sock (tock talk) 04:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 3 Can't find any mention of improvising for having no camera dolly. I've checked a few other random ones and they check out, since they all have recent retrieval/archived dates I'm happy to assume good faith.

• That information appears to be leftover WP:OR that I never double-checked. Thank you for catching that, that was my bad. I searched high and low and couldn't find that information anywhere, except for people sourcing the Wikipedia article. Sock (tock talk) 04:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically just a couple of pretty minor fixes and then i'm happy to pass the article. All the Best. Biggs Pliff (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've made the necessary changes. Please review them when you get the chance, and speaking of review, thank you for reviewing this article! Sock (tock talk) 04:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've passed the article, congratulations! Biggs Pliff (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]