Talk:Batman in film/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
It looks like this article has been needing a review for quite awhile, so I'll be reviewing it over the next few days. This is my first GA review, so if for some reason I think that it should fail I will instead ask for a second opinion to help make sure that I did the process correctly. You may contact me on my talk page if you have any comments or questions that should be directed specifically at me, rather than as a general part of the review process. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It definitely passes the quick-fail criteria. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Early thoughts

I'm about halfway through the article so far, and there are a few things I thought I'd point out for improvement:

• The Batman Returns and Batman Forever sections could use some citations and more about the making of the film.
• The following few sentences in the Batman section could use some reworking: "Numerous A-list actors were considered for the role of Batman before Michael Keaton was cast. The caused a controversy with his casting. In 1988, Keaton had been typecast as a comedic actor."

Other than those, things look good so far. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

On the first point, the main articles for those movies have some production/development info; copying that over and then shortening it a little might work. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added two paragraphs that were deleted which I think help solve that problem. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the the Batman Forever section has been updated, and that looks good now. Batman Returns could still use a little work. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Plots

• Batman:DarKnight, Batman Begins, and The Dark Night all suffer from the same thing as Returns and Forever did; although I know that DarKnight wasn't released so information might be scarce, some more information on the development of each of them would be good. Having one that is primarily a plot summary won't make or break the GA, but two or three might. Once that's cleaned up a bit, I'll make my final review or put it on hold for more improvements. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I haven't really studied the references; I've been looking at them as I go along and they all look pretty reliable, and there's a large number of different sources. If there's any particular link in the references that I should take a look at, please let me know. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

On hold

I have put the review on hold for 7 days or until it is improved enough to pass, whichever comes first. The improvements that are needed are described in the "Plot" section above. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Great work, Wildroot. The Dark Knight still needs a bit of work, but otherwise everything looks good! -Drilnoth (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Some more images would be nice, but the article is good without them. I'd recommend adding some more if this is ever going to go for FA status.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Excellent work. I think that the article is very informative about the series as a whole, without going into too much detail on any one topic.