Talk:Daredevil (film)/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- In the Plot, it would be best to mention "Jack Murdock" in the second paragraph, then instead of it being mentioned later on. Same section, "Fathers" ---> "Father's". Same section, "As Bullseye manages to wind Daredevil", what do you mean? In the Cast section, this sentence ---> "he vows to seeks justice by any means", reads very odd. In the Sequel, "but stated that he'd not be willing to gain weight" ---> "but stated that he would not be willing to gain weight".
- Check.
- In the Plot, it would be best to mention "Jack Murdock" in the second paragraph, then instead of it being mentioned later on. Same section, "Fathers" ---> "Father's". Same section, "As Bullseye manages to wind Daredevil", what do you mean? In the Cast section, this sentence ---> "he vows to seeks justice by any means", reads very odd. In the Sequel, "but stated that he'd not be willing to gain weight" ---> "but stated that he would not be willing to gain weight".
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Throughout the article, link "Hell's Kitchen", "sai", "Old School", "R rating", and "Marvel.com" to their correspondence articles. Also, since this article is American and not British, dates need to be formatted from "6 February 2003" ---> "February 6, 2003", per here. Also, dates need to be unlinked, including the ones in the references, per here. In the Plot, why are the links of "Kingpin (comics)" and "Bullseye (comics)" like that? In the Cast section, in the Jennifer Garner part, her name is already linked in the beginning so there's no need for her name to be linked within the paragraph. The article tends to have "red links", if they don't have articles, it would be best to un-link them, per here. In the Production section, "Ain't It Cool News" is not supposed to be italicized, per here. Same section, paragraph 5, I don't think that "Supervising Sound Editor" and "Sound Designer" are supposed to be capitalize. If I'm wrong, then please excuse me. In the Marketing section, "Hamilton Watch Company" is not supposed to be italicized. Also, do the same for "IGN" in the Director's cut.
- Check.
- Throughout the article, link "Hell's Kitchen", "sai", "Old School", "R rating", and "Marvel.com" to their correspondence articles. Also, since this article is American and not British, dates need to be formatted from "6 February 2003" ---> "February 6, 2003", per here. Also, dates need to be unlinked, including the ones in the references, per here. In the Plot, why are the links of "Kingpin (comics)" and "Bullseye (comics)" like that? In the Cast section, in the Jennifer Garner part, her name is already linked in the beginning so there's no need for her name to be linked within the paragraph. The article tends to have "red links", if they don't have articles, it would be best to un-link them, per here. In the Production section, "Ain't It Cool News" is not supposed to be italicized, per here. Same section, paragraph 5, I don't think that "Supervising Sound Editor" and "Sound Designer" are supposed to be capitalize. If I'm wrong, then please excuse me. In the Marketing section, "Hamilton Watch Company" is not supposed to be italicized. Also, do the same for "IGN" in the Director's cut.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- The link titles in References 63 and and 65 are not supposed to be in all capitals, per here.
- Check.
- The link titles in References 63 and and 65 are not supposed to be in all capitals, per here.
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- Does Reference 16 cover all this ---> "In 1997, 20th Century Fox optioned the rights from Marvel Enterprises, and Chris Columbus was chosen to direct the film. In 1998, Marvel was facing bankruptcy. During this time 20th Century Fox allowed the option to expire, so Disney began negotiations in order to acquire the rights. In 1999, the negotiations failed to work out so Marvel sets the project up with Sony's Columbia Pictures"?
- Check.
- Does Reference 16 cover all this ---> "In 1997, 20th Century Fox optioned the rights from Marvel Enterprises, and Chris Columbus was chosen to direct the film. In 1998, Marvel was facing bankruptcy. During this time 20th Century Fox allowed the option to expire, so Disney began negotiations in order to acquire the rights. In 1999, the negotiations failed to work out so Marvel sets the project up with Sony's Columbia Pictures"?
- C. It contains no original research:
- Are JoBlo.com, ManWithoutFear.com, Brand Republic, and ComicsContinuum.com reliable sources?
- Check.
- Are JoBlo.com, ManWithoutFear.com, Brand Republic, and ComicsContinuum.com reliable sources?
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- In the lead, "perfectly-aimed" sounds like POV.
- Check.
- In the lead, "perfectly-aimed" sounds like POV.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
- Pass or Fail:
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly, thank you for taking the time to review the article! To answer your questions; 2b) Yes, reference 16 does contain all that information. 2c) I considered them reliable sources as these specific sources all contained interviews, thereby verifying their sources to be suitable for usage. Does that make sense? I was confused by 2a) as they weren't completely capitalised titles which were used, but I've made all suggested changes and clarified any uncertainties you had. Hope it's better. Please do ask or say if I did something which wasn't right, or left you unsure etc. -- Harish (Talk) - 22:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- You are very welcome for the review. I just needed to know the verifiability of the sources and yes your response makes sense. There were some dates that were still linked, but I delinked them, see here. Thank you to Harish for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)