Talk:Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer/GA1

GA Review

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.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the lead, "The film was directed by Tim Story, who also directed the original", I know what it means, but your reader needs to understand it, so I suggest re-writing it a little. Also, the lead seems very short and it would be best to summarize the entire article, per here. In the Reception section, it would be more encyclopedic if "#1" was changed to "number one".

    Done concerning the "#1" comment --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 15:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

   Y Done? The lead has been expanded, but maybe too much so. Your opinion? --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 21:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

   Seems fine, if you see the GA film examples like, The Dark Knight, Spider-Man 2, and The Incredible Hulk, you'll see that the lead is expanded with greatly a lot of info. from the article. Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Dates need to be unlinked, per here. In the Production section, it would be best if "Doug Jones" was linked once, per here.

   • Done – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 04:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

2. 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:

   Reference 1, 2, 17, and 19 are missing Publisher info.

   • Possibly Done I fixed 1, 2, and 19, but I cannot find any evidence of 17, which is rooted pretty deeply in the reception section. Should I simply remove half the section and do away with it? --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 15:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

   No worries, I fixed the ref. setting and check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

   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):

   In the Promotion section, there is a lot of important information missing somewhat required sources, including the DVD release. If the New York Daily News liked the film, where's the source to back that up?

   • Possibly Done The above dilemma excluded, all comments have from this criterion have been addressed thus far. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 16:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

   Image:FanFour2 newposter.JPG has a weak FUR

    Done --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 15:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Starstriker 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) 00:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)