Talk:Alien: Romulus/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Lankyant (talk · contribs) 12:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: BarntToust (talk · contribs) 19:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it... neutral?

No God-worship of Ridley Scott as the Messiah of film, no outwardly silly claims of contentious nature, no sort of promotional nonsense.

Is it... stable?

No recent edit-warring appears to have happened. This film has been out for some time, so no damningly vast revelations should be expected to shake up the state of the article.

Is it... illustrated?

Cast section sees Cailee Spaeny, Archie Renaux, and Isabella Merced, three prominent leading performers of the film. It's a shame no David Jonsson image exists on Commons, but beggars can't be choosers, eh? Development section poetically uses an image of Fede Álvarez, who was the keystone part of, well, developing the film. Nice skyline of Budapest in filming, with a nice footnote about why it was chosen in the Filming section. Marketing has xenomorph display Bilbo Baggins's... er, Ian Holm's CGI appearance is accompanied in harsh criticism of his recreation in the prose of the Reception section with an image of him. CC licenses are attached to these images, so goodie!

Is it... broad in coverage?

Indeed. I see the typical music split article, also List of Alien film series characters hatnote in cast section keeps the finer details about the characters away from hindering a concise nature.

Is it... Verifiable with no original research?

Spot checking a few sources, nothing seems so out-of-order, so that's good. Synthesis of an improper nature doesn't seem anywhere in this article.

Key takeaways:

Excellent work. For the longest time, I looked at this article in a past bare-bones state and I was like, "Nah, I'll work on Deadpool & Wolverine, not gonna really dedicate all my work to this the way it is". The growth and expansion this article has received since I last looked is phenomenal, the research required is commendable. I'm passing this!

How shocking... 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 20:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um. Ok… Mike Allen 19:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's your specific issue with the GA review, @MikeAllen? I noticed you've reverted a line in the lede a few times as unsourced (though ledes don't need to be sourced if everything is sourced in the article, which it is in this case). Was there anything else we need to discuss? Lewisguile (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Someone else with more time can deal with it. Thanks. Mike Allen 17:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly can't help but agree with MikeAllen here. This is one of the worst GA reviews I've seen. ภץאคгöร 23:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean really. How can a movie that was released three months ago become a 'Good Article' already? Oh well... Mike Allen 23:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]