Talk:Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

Gross

• Raiders of the Lost Ark: 384,140,454$
• Last Crusade: 474.17 million$
• Kingdom of the Crystal Skull:786,558,759$

but "Behind Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Last Crusade is the third-highest grossing Indiana Jones film" explanation?--Olağan Şüpheli (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The cited source was comparing only US gross, so I added "in the United States". --Mrwojo (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Cultural References

Overall this is a great article, but I don't quite understand the "cultural references" section. Usually these sections include references the movie makes to well known cultural (or Pop cultural) symbols and ideas. This seems to be more a list of inside jokes (the names of characters stemming from dogs or Frank Marshall's magic act, for example). These aren't Cultural References but rather inside jokes, references to earlier movies, or-dare I say it- trivia). 68.6.185.21 (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)CaptainJohnson

References section

Is the current formatting of the references section deliberate? Under a subheading "Citations", we have the "Making of..." book and a bibliography for theraider.net's extensive production coverage. Because none of the inline citations point directly to either of these, should they instead be placed in the "Further reading" section? Steve ^{T • C} 12:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was deliberate, but now I've removed those bold non-heading headers and removed the book recommendation since it was a random old addition. The intent is just people can look and see who Rinzler is and of course, the secret primary sources for the article. Alientraveller (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Pretty good article

This is a pretty good article. Are there any setbacks as to why this hasn't bee nominated yet? I did a lot of work on this article like a month ago, but Alientravller is responsible for how awesome this article is. I probably should add info (if any, Alientraveller seems to have covered everything on the visual effects section) from the ILM book I own before this nomination happens. Thoughts? Wildroot (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The information from the ILM book is actually covered in the article thanks to TheRaider.net. I'm not bothered about GA, I'm thinking of going straight to FA once I fill out the Themes and Cultural references sections with Brode's book. Alientraveller (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. You rule man. Wildroot (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Just passing through, but one thing that I would advise is for the lead to be punched up; given the additions over the last year, especially the production details, I don't think it really summarises the article any longer. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for GA. Soo, if it become a GA article, I'll nominate it to the FA. Regards, WCW - (Want to Talk) 08:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but these edits were completely unnecessary. Alientraveller (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, you cannot nominate an article for FA status unless you are one of the main contributors. Wildroot (talk) 05:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm one of the contributor. I felt I could change this article to a complete excellent article, just like Transformers. These edits are really needed. World Cinema Writer (talk-contributions) 07:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you are not a major contributor. Alientraveller (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to fight me? It's an article. Anyone can be the contributor for the article. Are you trying to make an edit war? World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 12:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

What about being like these ?[1] I think putting the plot in the first paragraph will be much better than creating another paragraph for it. While second paragraph is about a short brief about the production. The third is the review about the film. How do you like it ? World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 12:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I am in no way trying to fight you. I am simply telling you your edits were not well-written. To be blunt, you shouldn't be surprised I would undo you for grammar reasons since English is not your first language. Now stop edit-warring and wait for the GA review. If someone wants to expand the lead, do so without sentences like "With the diary as a vital key and the map with no names as a guide, Indiana Jones once again finds himself in another death defying adventure of pure excitement." or "Spielberg made the plot to do something about the past of Jones as he was afraid the film grosses far less than the two previous film." Alientraveller (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine, if you ut it in that way, I'll wait for the GA review. World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 09:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

1. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) WCW - (Want to Talk) 08:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Nominating Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, because it meets all the needs to be a GA article.

1. Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). Batpoddriver (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of May 17, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS): - Expansion needed.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused): {{GAList/check|aye}

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   Edit war between World Cinema Writer and Alientraveller.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

This article is stylistically well-written, and wonderfully cited. It covers all aspects of the film, from the actual plot, to the cast and marketing. Because the film is still so new, this article will change with time, just make sure that the article does not contain personal reviews (no original research). Good job to all editors who contributed to this article, and, to any future editors, keep up the good work! -Batpoddriver (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 11:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)