Talk:Inception/GA2

Latest comment: 12 years ago by TonyTheTiger in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I will start my review by the weekend.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Cast
Origins
  • Even though it is a quote, "exploring the idea of people sharing a dream space — entering a dream space and sharing a dream." seems redundant. Can anything be done?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Filming
Ending
Music
Marketing
Box-office performance
Critical response
  • What is meant by the phrase "first positive notice"
  • Maybe link surrealists
  • It is odd that you use the phrase "David Edelstein was reported to". Either he said it and you have an WP:RS to back it up or you can not find an RS to WP:ATT the quote to and it should be removed. reported to should not be used.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Home media
Accolades
  • I think the general term stagecraft should be used in the article as a collective for the types of awards won. The WP:LEAD could Say something like "The film received eight Academy Award nominations and nine British Academy Film Award nominations, won no artistic categories, while winning most of the stagecraft awards for which it was nominated. At awards ceremonies focussing on artistic categories such as Golden Globes, the film met with little success."
  • I am flexible on the above point.
  • I also think Social Network should be noted as the film that won most of the artistic categories in which Inception competed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   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):  
  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):  
    The licensing of File:Emma Thomas & Christopher Nolan at WonderCon 2010 3.JPG is a bit curious. We will need an image review. {{Personality rights}} may be relevant to it. The same tag is definitely relevant to File:InceptionCastPremiereJuly10.jpg and the latter needs a WP:CAPTION correction because phrases that are not complete sentences should not end with a period.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
    The former already has said rights template, and I added it to the latter. igordebraga 20:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
    Unless you are in a hurry, we can wait for an image review of the peculiar copyright claim on that image. If you don't want to wait, you can remove it and I will pass the article since that is the only remaining issue. I would expect an image review to happen by the weekend, but can't promise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
    So, it was removed then. igordebraga 04:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    I am putting this on hold to await responses to the issues noted above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Anything else? igordebraga 01:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

All concerns addressed. I am now Passing this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Reply