Talk:X-Men Origins: Wolverine/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Beginning Paragraph: Lets see.... The beginning paragraph is more on the plot of the film and about the cast, production and box office on the same paragraph is only written about one or two lines.
Plot: Clear, and no confusion.
Cast: Got all they need; image and description on casting and characterization. But, characters John Howlett, Elizabeth Howlett and Thomas Logan need a very well description and WP:REF. For example; "Victor and James' real father. Killed by young James Howlett.", change it to "Victor and James' real father. He was killed by young James Howlett."
Production (Music): Where's the track listing? While the others are good written and got enough WP:REF.
Release: Great.
Reception & Sequel: Extremely great. Especially the reception part.
WP:REF: Over 100 refs. Good enough for a WP:GA.
External links: Quiet a problem. From indicating it as, Movie's trailers, why not to, Film's trailers or Trailers at Apple.
Images: You got three images (including poster). You at least need about five or six. Here's the suggestions;
- Image on soundtrack
- Image on plot
- A cast's image on the film
- A filming image
- A scene in the film, which involves a CGI effect
- A marketing picture
Template: Why not you make a navigation box for the templates at the bottom of the article, just like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

Please follow the suggestions and repair the mistakes. Thank you, World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 03:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone User: AnmaFinotera's blanking only in the interests of transparency. I agree thoroughly with that editor's comments on the so-called "review" by User:World Cinema Writer and will recommence the review. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restarting GA review[edit]

Quick fail criteria assessment

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No problems when checking against quick fail criteria, on to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):
Reasonably well written, improvements could be made. I made one copy-edit. In the lead it is said that the film was released in the Netherlands on April 28 - in the Release section this is not mentioned.
b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):
Ref #9 [1] is dead; ref #36 [2] is dead; ref #126 [3] is dead
b (citations to reliable sources):
ref #6 [4] is not RS; ref # 12 [5] is not RS; ref 14# is not RS; ref #31 [6] is not RS; ref #48 [7] is not RS; ref #53 [8], IMdB is only reliable for casting details; ref #55 [9] is not RS; ref #57 [10] is not RS; ref #70 [11] is not RS; ref #88 [12] is not RS; ref #104 is not RS Jezhotwells (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
c (OR):
It is broad in its scope.
a (major aspects):
b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Ok, we have many non Rs sources, some other fixes need as per above which may require major rewrites, so failing for now, please bring back to WP:GAN when fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 10:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]