Talk:Pokémon Apokélypse/GA1

GA Review

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

Review by Ost316

Reviewer: Ost (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I made some small edits that I thought aided clarity or structure. Below are thoughts I had on more detailed parts.

• In the first paragraph, the second sentence and second to last sentence are pretty long and would likely read better split up.
• To me, "it was not due to technical difficulties" comes across like part of a garden path sentence, so maybe put a word like "shown" after "not".
• Is it possible to describe what it means to be a production like one of CollegeHumor's?
• "Settling on Pokémon ... on the subject" would probably read better if reorganized or split. Can you explain how approaching the film from mature standpoint resulted from displeasure with the trend and wanting to pushing the limits to shy of ridiculous. Were they separates goal to approach Pokémon maturely and make a dark reboot maturely?
• Maybe replace "mugged" or link to wiktionary; I could only tell the meaning from its context
• In general the article it pretty well written, but I have some trouble with how "trailer" is used. Is the film a fake trailer for a film that does not exist and is the e-mail preview then the trailer for the fake trailer? Often the article makes me feel like the film is a complete story. The synopsis in particular feels like a complete synopsis of the film described in the film instead of explaining that the film is structured as a trailer depicting the loose plot for a film. Only near the end of the development section and in the post-release comments does it become clear that the work is a fake trailer. I'd recommend specifying early that the film is structured like a trailer. Extra clarity may be gain with consistent use of "preview" or "trailer" for the "leaked" segment.
  • Just a shout that I haven't been ignoring this, just been swamped lately...I'll try and get the remaining issues tended to tonight, however.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I will probably go over it again in more detail, but from what I've seen so far I'm happy with the changes. The "structured as a trailer..." portion effectively clarifies the film as I thought it needed. —Ost (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the status on this? Been a month since the last comment. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll take over the review and post my concerns shortly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

After reading through the article, I saw no further issues. I made a tweak that I saw myself, but besides that this was a very good article. Sounds like a very interesting film. I'm now passing the article as a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)