Talk:Saw II/GA1
Latest comment: 12 years ago by MikeAllen in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 01:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Bluegh, Saw.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- Not too much work, just a few quibbles. Made a few copy-edits myself as I went through.
"topped charts its first week selling more than 3 million units" -> add either a comma or an em-dash after "week", the sentence as is flows for too long without pause. Your call which you'd prefer.
I'm not keen on "Gus's neck" - I'd prefer to drop the extra s, but MOS doesn't come down on either side of that issue. Again, up to you at the end of the day.
Not sure about the "Cast" section - it's not really adding anything since the cast are explained in the plot. Perhaps padding it a little with information from the production-related sections would give it a sense of purpose but as is it seems a bit redundant, especially with the two "see also" links.
Thinking the same with the "Crew" section, too. It's less necessary since it's definitely covered in direct prose.
When listing writers for the soundtrack, just use "Piped surname; piped surname; piped surname" as the format, rather than full names all on separate lines.
"and that both films are "more clever and revolting"" -> Both films are more clever than what?
I don't really think the awards table needs a collapsible cell, to be honest. Separate the names by semi-colons instead of line breaks and just let it wrap.
The article body makes no mention of this being Hoffman's last release, though it's present and cited in the lead. Bung it in the main body and move the citation there.
- Not too much work, just a few quibbles. Made a few copy-edits myself as I went through.
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- All grand.
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- No problems with scope.
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Seems neutral to me.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- History seems stable.
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Images are fine. All used well and the two non-free files have suitable fair use rationales appended.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Just gonna hold this one while the crit 1 issues listed are seen to, but that shouldn't involve an awful lot of work. Apart from that we're pretty much good to go.
- Pass or Fail:
- What if the soundtrack writers don't have a wiki link? I didn't know we were supposed to only include last names. About the award table, can you zap that code, I didn't put it there and I'm not sure how to safely remove it. Working on the rest. Thanks. —Mike Allen 03:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- A red link is fine, they've obviously done enough work to be notable, just not enough to attract article-creation levels of attention. Doesn't have to be surname only, but do keep the line breaks out - for instance, "Dave Buckner; Tobin Esperance; Jerry Horton; Jacoby Shaddix" or "Buckner; Esperance; Horton; Shaddix" are both fine. Line breaks, even with the two-tone table, make it a little confusing to break up the credits for each song from the list. I was about to gank the collapsed cell but I've been beaten to it. GRAPPLE X 16:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Pretty much ready to pass this, but there's still a 1A issue I'd like to see resolved. In the "Critical reviews" section, we've got the following - "Gregory Kirschling of Entertainment Weekly gave the film a B minus saying, "Saw II is just barely a better B flick than Saw" and that both films are "more clever and revolting"". Still don't know what "both" films are meant to be "more clever and revolting" than, which leaves this seeming like an unfinished sentence. I think that's really the only issue left, so I'm going to pass this now and let you resolve it when you get a chance. Well done on the article. GRAPPLE X 00:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)