Talk:Dredd/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TriiipleThreat (talk · contribs) 15:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct:

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

• The Marketing section should be moved to the Release section or it's own section per WP:FILMMARKETING. It is usually consider to be separate from from the film's production. Also the reporting of the first images should be removed as a customary marketing tactic and is not accompanied by critical analysis.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• The Design section should be moved before the Filming section as it mostly takes place before the film enters principal photography.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

• The production notes reference in Urban's cast section is interrupted by another bit of information with another reference, in such cases another citation is required before the interrupting information as not to mislead readers, which citation cites which bit of information.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research:

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Pass/Fail:

• Overall a very well written, interesting article. Good use of sources and paraphrasing their contents. The plot section however could use some work before submitting for a featured article nomination, although I know it is difficult considering the film. Congratulations to everyone who contributed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for passing it, but what is wrong with the plot? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It just doesn't flow that well, particularly the last paragraph. It's reads like a list or timeline of events but it's not horrible, it's good enough for GA but could use some touch up for FA. Also a couple of the sources could be upgrading before FA as well (/Film, comingsoon.net, e.g.).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I just made some modifications to that last paragraph, trying it to read more like prose and less like sports commentary. See what you think of that. --uKER (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Much better.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• K, I think I've done what you're listing here. Just to double check: 1) looked up and added reference to cast section for Urban; 2) Moved Marketing section; 3) Removed mention of photos and accompanying unused ref; 4) MOved filming after design. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm still going through the article, so keep checking back for additional comments.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)