Talk:Batman in film/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
It looks like this article has been needing a review for quite awhile, so I'll be reviewing it over the next few days. This is my first GA review, so if for some reason I think that it should fail I will instead ask for a second opinion to help make sure that I did the process correctly. You may contact me on my talk page if you have any comments or questions that should be directed specifically at me, rather than as a general part of the review process. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely passes the quick-fail criteria.

-Drilnoth (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early thoughts

I'm about halfway through the article so far, and there are a few things I thought I'd point out for improvement:

The Batman Returns and Batman Forever sections could use some citations and more about the making of the film.
The following few sentences in the Batman section could use some reworking: "Numerous A-list actors were considered for the role of Batman before Michael Keaton was cast. The caused a controversy with his casting. In 1988, Keaton had been typecast as a comedic actor."

Other than those, things look good so far. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the first point, the main articles for those movies have some production/development info; copying that over and then shortening it a little might work. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added two paragraphs that were deleted which I think help solve that problem. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the the Batman Forever section has been updated, and that looks good now. Batman Returns could still use a little work. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plots

Batman:DarKnight, Batman Begins, and The Dark Night all suffer from the same thing as Returns and Forever did; although I know that DarKnight wasn't released so information might be scarce, some more information on the development of each of them would be good. Having one that is primarily a plot summary won't make or break the GA, but two or three might. Once that's cleaned up a bit, I'll make my final review or put it on hold for more improvements. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't really studied the references; I've been looking at them as I go along and they all look pretty reliable, and there's a large number of different sources. If there's any particular link in the references that I should take a look at, please let me know. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

I have put the review on hold for 7 days or until it is improved enough to pass, whichever comes first. The improvements that are needed are described in the "Plot" section above. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, Wildroot. The Dark Knight still needs a bit of work, but otherwise everything looks good! -Drilnoth (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Some more images would be nice, but the article is good without them. I'd recommend adding some more if this is ever going to go for FA status.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Excellent work. I think that the article is very informative about the series as a whole, without going into too much detail on any one topic.