Talk:Bionicle 2: Legends of Metru Nui

Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 9 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 00:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Behindthescenesbionicle2.jpg

Image:Behindthescenesbionicle2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary section

The entire section is unsourced, and has some issues with the prose. For example, take the following sentence, "The Toa gathered and used the power of Unity, and sealed Makuta in a prison of crystallized protodermis." This illustrates a wider problem I see with this section: It's a bit too in-universe for GA standards. What is "the power of Unity?" What is "protodermis?" I can read the latter after some Googling, but these things shouldn't be presented as they are.—DMCer™ 20:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yikes! I can't believe I missed those! I'll adjust those in a moment.--Twilight Helryx 02:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

One question: why would a plot summary need sources? If you look at the plot summary for Titanic, an article that passed GAN, the only citation there was for the last sentence about whether or not a character had died in the end. I understand the need for citations for the protodermis thing, but since I've already adjusted that, the rest in the summary are things that one can see simply by watching the movie.--Twilight Helryx 17:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Good fixes for the issues I mentioned. It appears, many FA's don't source the plot summaries, so I suppose it's OK here too. Carry on.—DMCer™ 03:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bionicle 2: Legends of Metru Nui/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The article meets the manual of style guidelines and wikiproject films guidelines. I can't see any major issues, other than a few minor things that needed to be fixed, which I've already taken care of.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Most of the citations seem to be valid and reliable, although some of them appear to be a bit sketchy at first glance. There's a few dead links in the citations, including http://www.scifilm.org/reviews/bioniclemetru.html and http://www.variety.com/ac2005_article/VR1117915590?nav=news, so it is impossible to verify the validity of those. Also, the budget listed in the infobox of $5 million does not have a citation, so that cannot be verified. I wouldn't necessarily expect the citation to appear in the infobox, but I would actually expect that to partially summarize info in the article, so I would think a mention of the budget should be mentioned in the production section. As an additional note, it should be mentioned in this review for future reference that the plot summary does not need an explicit citation, per Wikiproject Films style guide -- "Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary." I just thought it would be important to note that here since the previous GA delisting from last May cited lack of citations as one of the reasons for delisting.

 Question: :Removed the dead links; but if I can't find new sources, should I remove the info as well?--Twilight Helryx 03:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Based on the Wikiproject Films Style Guide, the article appears mostly complete. What is missing is some discussion on themes, or "unifying or dominant ideas and motifs in a film's elements (such as plot, dialogue, photography, and sound) conveying a position or message about life, society, and human nature."

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I believe that the article is presented in a neutral tone.

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The article is stable and there is no evidence of edit-warring or WP:3RR violations.

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

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

   There's only one image in the article. While not a free image, it is an acceptable use for this type of an article.

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall, I think that this article come very close to meeting the six good article criteria, and it can be listed pending the changes mentioned above. I will leave this review on hold until 3/2/2010, so that the issues can be addressed. Cheers! WTF? (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I will get to work on this as soon as I can. My schedule is a little cramped right now so I hope you can bear with me for being a bit slow. Thanks again!--Twilight Helryx 03:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Deadlinks are fixed, but is that last issue going to be fixed? Ideally I would want to either pass or fail this article today or very soon. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This article has been on hold for over a month, the article hasn't even been edited in two weeks. I fail to see how improvements are being made. There are plenty more articles that need reviewing.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 02:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Taking over review

Right this has been going on for four months. Nominators should have articles ready for review when then nominate them. The WP:Good article criteria are straightforward enough that self assessment before nomination can be undertaken. . I have come here following this note from Wizardman.

It appears that the nominator has lost interest so I am going to make a determination now.

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Prose is mostly sufficient to meet the GA criteria "reasonably well written", although there is still room for improvement. Still some badly written sentences, however.

   The film has many scenes taking stock footage from itself. What does this mean?

   The film was received with mixed reviews, with some noting the filling in of plot holes from the last movie. Was that the only point mentioned in the reviews?

   Plot section overly long and detailed for a 75 minute animation.

   Most of the animation was created in Taiwan by a company called CGCG. Where was the rest created, what was the role of the studio that won the awards?

   The film was first screened on October 6, 2004, at the El Capitan Theatre in Hollywood, California.. The lead says it was direct to DVD (also that fact{?) is not mentioned in the article body).

   Cartoon Network aired the movie for the first time less than two months after its release on December 18, 2004, at 7 p.m. Eastern Time. That is more than two months.

   Reception section has more detail on the release history than the reviews. No sales figures or DVD chart figures

   Production section has no mention of the budget, although that is in the infobox.

   Two awards were won by the studio that created Bionicle 2 at the 27th Annual Telly Awards. Doesn't the studio (ddPR) deserve a name check? Surely their role should be mentioned in the production section?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The article is mostly well referenced but some criticism is not attributed. I have tagged those instances.

   I have fixed some dead links and tagged two for which I could not find an archive version

   ref # 11 [1] failed verification, as did ref #15 [2]

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   See comments abiove about lack of detail in production section

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, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article still does not meet the GA criteria, so I shall not be listing it. If you disagree with this decision, please take it to WP:GAR. Otherwise, I suggest that you ask for a WP:Peer review to get further input, and when you sure that it fully meets the GA criteria, renominate it at WP:GAN. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Bionicle 2: Legends of Metru Nui. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA615748.html?text=bionicle%202
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060513025822/http://news.awn.com/index.php?ltype=search to http://news.awn.com/index.php?ltype=search&range=all&search=bionicle&newsitem_no=12231
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20070528073747/http://www.nathanfurst.com/music.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928055203/http://www.dvdtown.com/review/bionicle2legendsofmetrunui/12912/2414/ to http://www.dvdtown.com/review/bionicle2legendsofmetrunui/12912/2414/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031009092159/http://www.saturnawards.org/san.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/san.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060701221033/http://iparentingmediaawards.com/winners/11/Home_Video_DVD.php to http://iparentingmediaawards.com/winners/11/Home_Video_DVD.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.upcomingdiscs.com/dvd_review.php?load_this=bionicle2&review_where=authors
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930204052/http://www.movieweb.com/dvd/release/04/49204/review452.php to http://www.movieweb.com/dvd/release/04/49204/review452.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bionicle 2: Legends of Metru Nui. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA615748.html?text=bionicle%202
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060113130810/http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/bionicle2.php to http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/bionicle2.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)