Talk:Alien (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, this sentence ---> "Ripley arms the self-destruct sequence and heads for the shuttle with Jones the cat", "Jones the cat" doesn't need to be in the sentence, since its already stated that Jones is the crew's cat. In the Origins section, ---> "choosing to work on O'Bannon's first", I know what its trying to say, but how 'bout the reader. In the Chestburster section, "In 2007", add a comma after "2007". Same thing in the 2003 Director's Cut and Lasting critical praise sections. In the Awards and accolades section, is there a period missing in this sentence ---> "the Grammy Award for Best Soundtrack Album, and a BAFTA Award for Best Film Music"?– --IllaZilla (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Resolved- Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- In the Plot, this sentence ---> "Ripley arms the self-destruct sequence and heads for the shuttle with Jones the cat", "Jones the cat" doesn't need to be in the sentence, since its already stated that Jones is the crew's cat. In the Origins section, ---> "choosing to work on O'Bannon's first", I know what its trying to say, but how 'bout the reader. In the Chestburster section, "In 2007", add a comma after "2007". Same thing in the 2003 Director's Cut and Lasting critical praise sections. In the Awards and accolades section, is there a period missing in this sentence ---> "the Grammy Award for Best Soundtrack Album, and a BAFTA Award for Best Film Music"?
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Well done.
- 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:
- There's a problem with Reference 4 and its missing a Publisher info., as well as Reference 5.– The website used for Ref #4 times out, so I changed it to the search page. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Resolved
- Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- There's a problem with Reference 4 and its missing a Publisher info., as well as Reference 5.
- 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):
- C. It contains no original research:
- 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:
- 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:
- Not very good, per the article's history page.– The only issue currently is an IP who re-orders the cast members in the "Casting" section without explanation. In my last revert edit summary I explained that they are listed in alphabetical order. Hopefully the IP will get it. Anyway, this is a minor issue. Most recent changes amount to plot creep by IPs, and have been quickly reverted. There have been no edit wars other than the casting section issue. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Resolved
- Well, that sort of stuff needs to be sorted out. Have you considered adding a hidden note to the section, stating that the cast section needs to be in alphabetical order? I know its mentioned here. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Good idea. I will do that. I think I'll add it to the infobox cast field as well. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that sort of stuff needs to be sorted out. Have you considered adding a hidden note to the section, stating that the cast section needs to be in alphabetical order? I know its mentioned here. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Not very good, per the article's history page.
- 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) 00:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you to IllaZilla 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) 01:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)