Talk:Cowboys & Aliens/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 14:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Will start this review shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   Explain what Anamorphic format means in the context of this article

   Done. --Boycool (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

   "received a theatrical release" - clumsy wording

   Fixed. --Boycool (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

   Three sentences in a row starting with "The film" - "The film, though having grossed its budget back, is considered to be a financial disappointment, taking $174.8 million in box office receipts on a $163 million budget. The film received mixed reviews, with critics generally praising its acting but critical of its blend of the Western and science fiction genres. The film was released on DVD and Blu-ray disc on December 6, 2011." - Please vary wording so as not to be monotonous.

   Fixed. --Boycool (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

   Too many short, choppy paragraphs, especially in "Development and casting"

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   All quotes, even in the lede must be directly cited.

   Done. --Boycool (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

   Should not be in the lede: "The film was released on DVD and Blu-ray disc on December 6, 2011." - it's a detail and the lede is supposed to be a summary of the most important elements of the article.

   Omitted. --Boycool (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

   That section also contains a very large quote. Is there a way to paraphrase some of it? It is too long.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   Please add (subscription required) to those citations applicable

   Provide sources directly after all quotes.

   Done. --Boycool (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

   Otherwise, the article looks well referenced.

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   ILM was careful to make the creatures "cool and captivating". - needs citation

   Done. --Boycool (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

   The second to last paragraph in "Design and effects" only has one citation, and that is after the ending quote. Is that citation meant to cover the whole paragraph?

   Yes it is. --Boycool (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

   "Critical reception" contains many uncited quotes.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• I may add other comments as I spot them. Meanwhile I'll put this on hold to give you a chance to start work.

• ok, a few minor things:

• I don't understand what this means: "It's very easy to just cut the string and then all of a sudden the action starts and you're in Independence Day." - cut the string? Unfortunately I couldn't acces the MNBC site that references the quote. (It freezes my browser.)

• I made a some edits that you are free to change if they are faulty.[1], plus some previous ones with other editors intervening.
• Anyway, these are minor and don't prevent the article from passing. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Reevaluation after fixes

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability?: Pass

6. Images?: Pass

• Congratulations! A very interesting description of the film. Makes me want to see it! MathewTownsend (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)