Talk:Paul (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Matthew R Dunn (talk · contribs) 20:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I will be conducting the review. -- Matthew RD 20:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

1. Well written: ✗ Fail. See notes below
2. Verifiability: ✗ Fail. See notes below
3. Broadness in coverage: ✗ Fail. See notes below
4. Neutral: ✓ Pass
5. Stability: ✓ Pass. No big editing conflicts
6. Images: ✓ Pass. One non-free has a fair use rationale and right tags.

Comments

• The lead section is too short, only three lines. It needs to be at least twice as long. The lead section is basically summarising the articles content; the brief on what the film is about, production, and reception.
• In the plot section, who's Lorenzo Zoil? Who does her work for?
• "Paul reveals that since he was captured by the government, he had been advising them in all manner of scientific and sociological achievements. Yet Paul had outlived his usefulness as a receptacle of knowledge, and his captors were intending to surgically remove Paul's brain in an attempt to harness his abilities". This is a bit too wordy. I'd try shortening it to "Paul reveals he was captured by the government, and advised them on several scietnific and sociological achievements. However, Paul escaped when he realised he outlived his usefulness."
• The cast section, hmmm. Some credits have some expansion from the simple "he/she plays him/her", but then again not all them, I'd like there to be some description on what the characters are; how they're developed, actor's input into the character. Or, move the Bateman and Weaver stuff to the paragraph below.
• The production section seems a little short. Is there anything to expand on it? The home media section lists special features that could be added in to the production section. Also, there are quite a lot of one or two lined paragraphs, which aren't really paragraphs at all. Paragraphs should be longer than that.
• Why are there stars in the reception section? I never seen these in any other film article before. Seems decorative. Saying just "three out of four stars" is enough.
• "Simon Pegg has stated that although he would like to film a sequel to Paul, the time and expense it would take means it is unlikely to happen.[31]" This needs a reword.

Sources:

• There are quite a few sentences that are uncited. I added citation needed tags so you'd know which are unsourced.
• Be sure you use cite templates on them.
• Ref numbers 9 and 31 are just bare urls, you need to use cite templates on them too.
• What's the publisher/name of author/date of article for ref 4?
• What's the publisher/name of author/date of article for ref 8?
• There are so many inconsistancies with the ref formats, they all need the name of article, date of article, accessdate, author of article and publishers if any. Make sure the dates are all consistant, they need to be all DD/MM/YYYY (for example 1/1/2011) or all M D Y (for example January 1, 2011)
• Why is Twitter used as reference?

There still may be some issues but I'm not going to go delve into this review any further. I'm afraid this is a fail as there are too many things wrong with it. I suggest you sort out the issues above, and get it peer reviewed. When these are done, you may renominate it. Thanks. -- Matthew RD 19:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)