Talk:RoboCop/GA1

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Darkwarriorblake in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 22:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?

Infobox and lead edit

  • Normally there are references for the runtime, budget, and box office in the infobox.
Hi Dude, as long as the information is sourced in the article my Featured Article experience has been to not add citations to the infobox or lead. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for giving a reason! Guess you're right as it's already sourced in prose. Well, thanks for the comment and don't forget to mark the following suggestions with   Done and   Not done so I can see your progress.   Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 23:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Could we credit Dan O'Herlihy as Daniel O'Herlihy throughout the article to be consistent with the billing block and the infobox?
  • "Kurtwood Smith, Miguel Ferrer, and Ronny Cox" → "Ronny Cox, Kurtwood Smith, and Miguel Ferrer" per credits.
  • Should Detroit, Michigan, Dallas, and Texas be linked? Seems like a violation of WP:OVERLINK.
  • Could the sentence "the idea with Miner, who had similar ideas" be reworded? It sounds a bit repetitive.

Plot and cast edit

  • Remove the commas after "Emil to Metro West" and "RoboCop attempts to kill Boddicker".
  • Cast section looks good.

Production edit

Conception and writing edit

  • Remove the . in between the second and third references after "in the first act".  Done
  • "bursting in to" → "bursting into"  Done
  • I couldn't find the "office daydreams about a robot bursting in to a meeting and killing everyone" here.  Done

Development edit

  • The phrase "but consistent is he looked at the first page" needs rewording.  Done

Casting edit

  • This section looks good.

Filming edit

  • Any reason for including Wednesday in the first sentence?  Done

Post production and music edit

  • Can the last 2 sentences in the second paragraph be combined?  Done
This wasn't done.   Done
Oh, I thought you meant combine it with the paragraph above. Give me 2 secs. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • This reference says the full runtime was 102 minutes with 38 seconds so change "102 minutes" to either "102 minutes with 38 seconds" or "103 minutes."  Done

Special effects and design edit

  • Is there a reference for the claim in the first caption which reads "His death was the highest-rated scene by test audiences"?  Done

Release edit

  • "release on Friday, July 17, 1987" → "release on July 17, 1987"  Done
  • "ahead of re-release" → "ahead of a re-release"  Done
  • Shouldn't the dash in between "($7.1 million)—both" be changed into a semicolon?  Done
  • For Jaws: The Revenge, $7.15 million rounds up to $7.2 million.  Done
  • Is the link to 1987 in film in "the year's fourteenth highest-grossing film" necessary?  Done

Reception edit

  • This section looks good.

Post-release edit

  • A reference is needed for the claim that the "VHS was estimated to have earned $24 million in sales".  Done "I mixed up the Indiewire and Uproxxx references" Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thematic analysis edit

  • This section looks good.

Legacy edit

  • This section looks good.

Sequels and adaptations edit

  • This section looks good.

References edit

  • The reference after "chief executive of OCP" is missing a website/publisher (BBC News).  Done
  • Mark all references from Vulture, The New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times with "url-access=limited".  Done
  • Mark all references from Adweek with "url-access=subscription".  Done
  • Don't cite Amazon per WP:AMAZON.  Done "Removed, could not replace." Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Progess edit

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):  
    b (citations to reliable sources):  
    c (OR):  
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  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):  

Overall:
Pass/Fail:  

  ·   ·   ·  

Comments edit