Talk:Watchmen (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

? Some of the sections seem a little trivial and irrelevant, I think the Tales of the Black Freighter infobox is not needed. Reviews seems a little.... ehhhh. ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 05:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed the infobox, transferred parts of Music to Soundtrack, but make yourself clearer! igordebraga ≠ 23:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a remotely good review to be honest. There's no explaining why things are not needed, or why some of the sections seem "a little trivial and irrelevant" let alone which sections, and you might find it better to review the article in a more typical format. -- Harish (Talk) - 16:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Lots of information, but it could stand some serious polishing.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Inconsistent tense use--needs copyediting throughout. Keene Act should be linked once. "Home video" is an improbable name for that section's contents. Ersatz see also at the end of "Moore and Gibbons' involvement" is misplaced. Thomas Jane's mention in the casting section seems apropos of nothing. There's a lot of article to review here, but these are some of the more glaring issues.

   Done them, except the copyedit and the renaming - what do you think it's more appropriate?igordebraga ≠ 02:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

   "DVD releases" comes to mind for that section name, but anything along those lines would be fine. Jclemens (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

   Renamed, tried to fix some of the writing. igordebraga ≠ 03:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Citation needed tag in the "Home video" section. References could benefit from standardization.

   Done.02:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Differences between comic and movie receive little to no coverage, and some elements could probably be broken out in WP:SS to shorten the text to WP:LENGTH guidelines.

   Suggestions? igordebraga ≠ 02:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

   What to shorten... "Cast and characters" should be cut by 1/3-1/2, and any non-redundant, non-summary in-universe info moved into the Characters of Watchmen article. Development section looks like a good candidate for a spinout, since only part of the history is relevant to this successful release. Overall, there's a ton of great information in here, and WP:LENGTH is NOT a GA fail criterion, so you don't have to mess with this right away, but get more advice in peer review before an FAC. Jclemens (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

   Split Development (the article would break 100kb someday!), but I don't know anything else is needed. igordebraga ≠ 03:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Good job.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   There's still an awful lot of folks adding to this. To be expected, I suppose, but most of the edits are not high quality.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Three images is pretty sparse. More free images would be nice, but this is adequate.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for one week for improvements to be addressed Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

   As of now, you're headed in the right direction. I'll check back Saturday. Jclemens (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

8. If you go further on 1a problems and/or extend for one more week (copyedit requests take long nowadays) I'll do whatever I can. igordebraga ≠ 11:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

   I don't see a need. While there's work to do before this is ready for FAC, it's certainly a pass per these improvements. You might want to nominate the development article separately, see if you can get a good topic out of it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)