Talk:Superman Returns/GA4

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

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):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

References

<ref>[[John Ottman]], ''Requiem for Mutants: The Score of X2'', 2003, [[20th Century Fox]]</ref>

• Does not use a citation template

 Done Wildroot (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Try adding some of the books in further reading as references.
• The further reading should be in the alphabetical order by author's surname.

 Done Wildroot (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• Try not to start sentences with however.
• Lead contains information that is not in the body (such as D.C Comics)
• The word reboot is an odd word; colloquial/industry term? needs clarification

 Done I don't think it's necessary to mention D.C. Comics in the article body. Wildroot (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Plot

• The plot seems a little too long. The plot should briefly tell the summary of the movie, not the entire movie.

Agreed. It's kinda long. I'll make sure it will meet the style guideline requirements (between 400 and 700 words). Wildroot (talk)

• In the plot, I think more context would help; I appreciate it is a sequel etc, but a little bit of background would help; at present, it assumes lots of knowledge. For users who nothing about Superman, they need to know, who is Superman, who is Kent, who is Louis, etc?
• Maybe even a brief resume of the story-so-far would help

These comments contradict your first concern with the Plot, which you argue is already too long (which I agree). Wildroot (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done Wildroot did it.

Cast

• One of the characters in the plot is missing a bullet. If you are going to put bullets for characters, put it for all of them.

Not every single supporting, insignificant role has to be covered with a bullet. Wildroot (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It is better if you keep it consistent. Having all of the characters in one sentence bullets, and then having one character with a paragraph and no bullet makes the last one stand out too much. warrior4321 00:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Cast is pretty confusing, e.g. "Brandon Routh as Clark Kent / Superman: Stephan Bender portrays teenage Clark Kent..."

 Done Wildroot (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Cast might actually be better in prose-form, or at least partly

 Done Wildroot (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There are too many one or two line paragraphs. warrior4321 20:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Links

• Links to disambigs: heist, continental, Colgate

 Done Wildroot (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• check for overlinking; e.g. in "design and effects", "computer-generated imagery" is wikilinked twice in same paragraph

 Done Wildroot (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Prose

"McG was signed to direct with a script by J. J. Abrams. A target June 2006 theatrical release date was put in motion. However, McG dropped out in June 2004."

How about "McG was signed to direct with a script by J.J. Abrams, but McG dropped out. Nonetheless, a target theatrical release date of June 2006 was created"?

 Done Wildroot (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional Info

Take a look at Star Trek: The Motion Picture

• Any info about spin-offs, marketing, toys, promotional tie-ins?

 Done

• Some information about the video game should be included

 Done

• Information about the sound effects

Not relevant for this movie.

• Information about the DVD release

 Done

I am placing the article on hold for now. Please address these problems for the article to pass. Thanks. warrior4321 02:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, but you must recognize that this is only a GA review. Your concerns with Additional Info and "Try adding some of the books in further reading as references" would be addressed seriously in a Featured Article review and are not required for a Good article with 71 references. I will finish addressing the rest of the concerns today, as well information about the DVD release. Wildroot (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been 10 days since this GA review was put on hold, and I see attempts going to address any of the concerns I noted out to be going very slowly. If by Friday, I do not see proper improvement to this article, I will have to fail this GA nomination. If you are going to nominate an article and want it to pass, at least be ready to fix the problems, the reviewer suggests. Sure, some of my comments are for passing an FA article, but a lot isn't. I will this is more than fair, if you feel it isn't, take this to WP:GAR. As well, I am reviewing a few other articles at the same time, and cannot keep tracks of edits which are addressing the concerns. If anything from my review has been addressed, please place a * {{done}} underneath my comment. warrior4321 00:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Igordebraga addressed a lot of your concerns. I am not sure if you noticed. Anyway, sorry for the pushed-back timing. I think I can get this finished by Friday. Cheers.Wildroot (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Put other {{done}} tags where they weren't, even though it was fixed. igordebraga ≠ 16:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Since everything is fixed, I will now pass this article. Congratulations and well done! warrior4321 23:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)