Talk:Interstellar (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 07:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I will review this article. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead, which is usually supposed to touch on all sections, does not have anything from scientific accuracy section.
• "His brother, director Christopher Nolan, had" — You've already mentioned him being a director in the development section.
• Add the year for Miss Julie, Transcendence, Inception, The Dark Knight Rises, Man of Steel.
• "was scheduled to last for four months" — Scrap "for".
• "and involved hundreds of extras as well as some 130 crew members, most of them local" — Rephrase this as "and involved hundreds of extras in addition to 130 crew members, most of whom were local"
• "mock spaceships" — Spaceships were used to represent the planets? Strange. Are you sure this is right?
• "situation on Earth portrayed in early scenes" — "situation on Earth portrayed in the early scenes".
• Wikilink "terabytes".
• "asymmetrical, so the finished black hole ignored it.[59] Nolan found the finished effect was understandable, provided he maintained consistent camera perspectives: "What we found was as long as we didn't change the point of view too much, the camera position, we could get something very understandable"" — Looks a bit vague. Do clarify this.
• "The portrayal of what a wormhole would look like is considered scientifically correct" — According to whom?
• "Correct depiction of the Penrose process was also praised" — Who praised it? Critics? Do clarify this.
• nb 1 is unosurced.
• Add the year for Furious 7, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, Avatar, Gravity, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, Pacific Rim, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1, Frozen, Shrek 2, The Day After Tomorrow, Monsters University, World War Z, Insomnia and Dumb and Dumber To.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.

   Pass or Fail:

The sources are good too. The article could do with a little more copyediting but looks good enough for GA criteria, Cognissonance.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)