Talk:Star Trek (2009 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:20 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll look at it.

Pros

• Well written. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:46 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Superbly sourced. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:46 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Pictures are included. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:46 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Plot meets criteria. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:46 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Cons

• The cast section should be merged. A section only for Supporting actors isn't WP:FILM standard. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:23 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Reception section - "Very positive" sounds a little juvenile. Perhaps "positive" or maybe this qualifies for "critical acclaim". Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:26 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Reference 107 is a dead link. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:29 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• References 1, 2, 16, 17, 31, 35, 41, 43, 49, 70, 79, 84, 95, 101, 102, 118, 126, 128, 140, 142, 144, 157-173, 175, 179, 180 and 182 should be formatted to the rhythm of the other sources. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:37 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Marketing - "Abrams toured Rome; Cologne; Madrid; Paris; London; New York City and Los Angeles with 25 minutes of footage." Rather than list out every city, merge into "Abrams toured parts of Europe and North America with 25 minutes of footage." Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:40 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• The pictures in the Cast section work, but maybe try to find a picture with all the main cast (the ones that depict the central characters on the Enterprise). Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:42 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Done with everything but the references. Geez, that is a lot. LOL, but I'll try and have it done by tomorrow. —DAP388 (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    • With the cast picture, i meant a picture of them all together at a premiere or something. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 4:10 10 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Here are some other photos, but I think that are too small. —DAP388 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• • • • • I guess the pics aren't too vital. I suggest cutting it back down to three, fixing the references and i'd say this is GA. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 1:04 11 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Phew. Tackled the links. Should be all good to go. :) —DAP388 (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I say this is a pass. The links still need some adjusting, but that can easily be taken care of. Good job. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:05 12 January 2012 (UTC)