Talk:Ghost Rider (2007 film)/GA1
GA Review edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Another editor has already come by and added some templates that are appropriate to this review. The lead section should summarize the full article. For an article of this size, it should be at least two well-developed paragraphs and give information from almost every (if not every) section of the article. The reception section needs a lot of work. Currently, the only actual review is from Rotten Tomatoes, which I'm not convinced can be used as a reliable source. Did critics not review the movie? Are the statistics for the box office revenue the most recent ones available? The video game section needs references, and it could use some more information if any is available. The plot section seems long and could use some trimming. The line at the top of the plot section shouldn't be over top of the infobox. I'm not sure how to fix this, but it can be done. The "Promotion" section is a series of one-sentence paragraphs. Can anything be added, or can some of them at least be combined? Names of magazines and newspapers (print or online) in the references section should be italicized (eg. Variety). A few of the external links aren't working (#14 - Ghost Rider Skips Dome, and #39 - Peter Fonda Talks About Working with Russell Crowe and 'Ghost Rider 2'; a couple also need to be updated: the official site in the infobox and external links section, and #18 - Ask MSJ Part 3). The infobox image is also tagged as needing to be reduced to comply with fair use regulations. The access dates don't need to be linked in the references (references 37 and 38 are currently wikilinked). The "Music" section should be expanded (see some of the other film articles listed at WP:GA or WP:FA for ideas on how to do this.
This would be a good start on the improvements needed. Please note that this is not a comprehensive review and that I will go through the article in greater detail if these suggestions can be dealt with in a timely fashion. I will place the nomination on hold for a week to allow for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. Any questions or comments can be left here, as I have placed this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I fixed the two broken links and updated the box office figures/accessdate. Good luck with the rest of the fixes! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I expanded the Reception section to include a good deal of criticism (I swear, I can find no professional critic who approves of this movie in the slightest). The critical reception, for now, I think works pretty well. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 02:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I reduced the size of the poster at the top. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 02:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I italicized all magazine names in references. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 03:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Problem I might not be able to get to this article, as my schedule for the week may or may not be extremely busy. I may not be able to fulfill the necessary requirements to promote the article in time. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 03:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm torn here. There is still quite a bit of work required for my initial suggestions, and I haven't yet done a detailed review. I think the best thing to do might be to list it again after these suggestions have been dealt with and when you have some time. I don't have to fail the nomination, as the information from this page could be copied onto the regular talk page. Since it hasn't had a full review and we discussed it, there wouldn't be a fail in the article history. What do you think? GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- There has been no response, so I am going to close this nomination. There is still a lot of work to do, so I recommend working on this when you can find the time and then renominating it. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm torn here. There is still quite a bit of work required for my initial suggestions, and I haven't yet done a detailed review. I think the best thing to do might be to list it again after these suggestions have been dealt with and when you have some time. I don't have to fail the nomination, as the information from this page could be copied onto the regular talk page. Since it hasn't had a full review and we discussed it, there wouldn't be a fail in the article history. What do you think? GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Problem I might not be able to get to this article, as my schedule for the week may or may not be extremely busy. I may not be able to fulfill the necessary requirements to promote the article in time. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 03:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'll do as you have suggested. I apologize for not providing a prompt response. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 03:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)