Talk:The Last Airbender (film)/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I would probably close this debate myself. With all the IP editor contributions definitely in the reception section, my faith of this staying a good article is getting less slim. Opinions on how it can be a good article are still welcome though. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're concerned about stability, then patience is definitely a virtue :) Either way, however, here are my comments:

• Lead:
  • Don't think the listing of producers is really important enough to mention. ("Other producers include Frank Marshall, Kathleen Kennedy, Sam Mercer and Scott Aversano. ") The time could better be spent discussing the production aspects of the film.

• Body:
  • The plot section doesn't adequately explain many aspects of the film, such as what bending is. At the same time, other parts can be easily compressed. For example: "On the ship, Aang is tested by Zuko's Uncle Iroh (Shaun Toub) to confirm him to be the Avatar. After being informed that he is to be their prisoner for passing the test, Aang escapes using his glider and flies to his flying bison brought by Katara and Sokka." can be worded to "Zuko's uncle Iroh confirms Aang is the avatar; Aang escapes Zuko's clutches" or whatnot.
  • I happened to watch the film yesterday, and it seems like there are discrepancies in the plot; "Seeing the light that appeared from Aang's release, Zuko and some Fire Nation soldiers arrive at the Southern Water Tribe to demand the villagers hand over the Avatar. "—as I recall Zuko gathered up all the elderly; finding the Avatar was largely coincidental. The lead notes "Aang, a reluctant hero who prefers adventure over his job as the Avatar", but in the film Aang only complains about not being able to have a family.
  • There's definitely enough content in the article to pass GA requirements for comprehensiveness, but once again the prose can be simplified and condensed in places: "According to an interview with the co-creators in SFX magazine" is entirely unnecessary, for example (it should be footnoted anyhow!) Similar phrases pepper the article, and it should be entirely cast in past tense throughout save for non-historical developments. Other things that I noticed in my read-through were comma splices, typographic quotes and contractions.
  • Apparently unsourced: "It shows multiple scenes from the film and is an expanded version of the first TV spot. McDonald's sold Happy Meals to promote the film."
  • The promotion section gets a tad too detailed, especially quoting the comic press release verbatim.
  • Because what "the audience" actually thinks is pretty hard to do, I would drop the reference to mixed reception. You've only got one measure of that (CinemaScore, you should axe the RottenTomatoes user ranking entirely) and without a reliable source explicitly saying so, it's a dodgy claim to make.
• Images:
  • I don't see much defense for the use of non-free media like File:Airbendertoub.jpg, File:The Last Airbender soundtrack.jpg and especially File:Whose to blame for the last airbender.jpg per the requirements of WP:NFCC. You can just axe them altogether. I would also strengthen the rationale for the effects shots, pointing to critical commentary (the effects one shouldn't be too hard, although I'm not sure about the creature one.)
• References:
  • Most look reliable, but the use of lesser publications and blogs like io9 and Ain't It Cool is questionable considering there are far better print and web publications to use.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest closing this review soon if the editor doesn't respond, 20th of Jan now.. it's been on review for a good length of time in any case before hand, there are plenty of articles waiting for review in which editors will correct and improve on the same day.RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 01:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok I will respond. To be honest I am sort of trying to train myself to stop being a wikipediholic lately because I feel it's life consuming sometimes. And some of those things I could probably fix but some of them I am not sure of what to do (Images and references to be example). And I am not sure of what axing images together mean. But due to being not in Wikipedia a lot and due to what Raintheone's suggestion closing this might be appropriate if it isn't good article quality already. Anybody else can fix the article if they feel like doing more than just reviewing and they know they can fix it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Real-life takes precendence over Wikipedia any day. I'll archive this review then; if you want me to look at the article sometime, just leave me a note on my talk page and I'll go further in-depth. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.