Talk:Back to the Future/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- Lead
- Probably on the short side. According to WP:LEAD it really should be three paragraphs.
- It is not required to be exactly three paragraphs; wp:Lead is merely a guideline. In fact, wp:Lead's only length suggestion is "no more than four paragraphs", and says that it depends on the length of the article. TheHYPO (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- I realise it is not required to be three paragraphs, but according to WP:LEAD, it is verging on being four paragraphs. This is clearly an excellent article, and ought to be heading towards FAC pretty much straight after this. I suspect there, they will ask for at least a third paragraph. The lead ought to summarise the full article, and I believe it could do in greater detail at this stage. Peanut4 (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is not required to be exactly three paragraphs; wp:Lead is merely a guideline. In fact, wp:Lead's only length suggestion is "no more than four paragraphs", and says that it depends on the length of the article. TheHYPO (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- "The script was unsuccessfully pitched the concept to various film studios until it was acquired by Universal Picture following the box office success of Zemeckis' Romancing the Stone." I've read this sentence five times, and I still don't know what it means. I get lost after "pitched". If I take out "the concept" I seem to understand it, but not sure that would be the correct removal.
- I agree. It looks like someone was unsure whether "The concept was unsuccessfully pitched" or "the script" was. I don't know the history well enough to know whether it was the concept that was pitched or the script. (My guess would be concept, but I don't know). TheHYPO (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've clarified it. Alientraveller (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. It looks like someone was unsure whether "The concept was unsuccessfully pitched" or "the script" was. I don't know the history well enough to know whether it was the concept that was pitched or the script. (My guess would be concept, but I don't know). TheHYPO (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Plot
- "as he is about to be hit by a car, Marty pushes his father out of the way and takes the impact, resulting in Lorraine becoming infatuated with Marty instead of George." "As he" strictly refers to Marty and not George.
- Fixed. TheHYPO (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- "eighty-eight miles per hour" probably better as 88 mph or 88 miles per hour per WP:MOSNUM.
- Seems to have been fixed. TheHYPO (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Cast
- A minor suggestion would be to expand the last three characters to prevent them looking like stubby paragraphs.
- I don't believe we have the sources to do so. Alientraveller (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Is this also the position with the original nominator? While I don't see it necessarily being a banana-skin for an FAC, it would look better with more information. Peanut4 (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am the "original nominator", but Alientraveller contributed to this article as much as I did. I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but your suppose to be reviewing against the Good Article Criteria. This is not a FAC nomination. Cheers. Wildroot (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that does make you sound like a jerk. I try and give a detailed GA review every time, rather than an inane review, which isn't good to either the original nominator nor any other editor. See also process 1 of the GA process for passing reviews: "Ensure you have provided a detailed review of the article, giving an overview of how you believe it fulfills the Good article criteria, with suggestions to improve it if you can. Please also encourage the successful nominator(s) to review an article themselves." My suggestion above is part GA review-part future improvements. Peanut4 (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about my comments, but like Alientraveller said, we don't have the sources to do so. If anything we could go with original research, but that's against the Wikipedia Rules. Wildroot (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine. It was merely an inquiry; and as you say best as is, rather than any guesswork or original material. I was unsure what your own position was, and didn't want to complete the review before I either found that out, or the exact intricacies of this review / nomination. Will complete my review shortly. Peanut4 (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about my comments, but like Alientraveller said, we don't have the sources to do so. If anything we could go with original research, but that's against the Wikipedia Rules. Wildroot (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that does make you sound like a jerk. I try and give a detailed GA review every time, rather than an inane review, which isn't good to either the original nominator nor any other editor. See also process 1 of the GA process for passing reviews: "Ensure you have provided a detailed review of the article, giving an overview of how you believe it fulfills the Good article criteria, with suggestions to improve it if you can. Please also encourage the successful nominator(s) to review an article themselves." My suggestion above is part GA review-part future improvements. Peanut4 (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am the "original nominator", but Alientraveller contributed to this article as much as I did. I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but your suppose to be reviewing against the Good Article Criteria. This is not a FAC nomination. Cheers. Wildroot (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Is this also the position with the original nominator? While I don't see it necessarily being a banana-skin for an FAC, it would look better with more information. Peanut4 (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe we have the sources to do so. Alientraveller (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Production
- "while many sound editors worked twenty-four shifts on the film." Ditto as above. Should be 24-hour shifts.
- Fixed. TheHYPO (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- "so it was kept. Industrial Light & Magic created the film's thirty-two effects shots," And again 32 effects.
- And fixed. TheHYPO (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Release
- "Yet Back to the Future spent eleven weeks at number one." 11.
- "Adjusted for inflation, the film is fifty-eighth highest of all time." 58th. Needs saying as of when too.
- fixed numbering (not the "when" issue). Though I should point out that MOS:NUM clearly says that one- or two- word numbers are acceptably written in words, which includes all of your examples. TheHYPO (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Clarified that it is "all time". Alientraveller (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- It should also say whether that is still true. The line "Adjusted for inflation, the film is 58th highest-grossing film of all time." should end "of all time, as of MONTH YEAR." E.g. If it is still up to date, "as of October 2008." Peanut4 (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Clarified that it is "all time". Alientraveller (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- fixed numbering (not the "when" issue). Though I should point out that MOS:NUM clearly says that one- or two- word numbers are acceptably written in words, which includes all of your examples. TheHYPO (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Overall, it looks excellent. But I'll put it on hold for these minor points to be addressed. Peanut4 (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
It meets all the GA criteria, and probably close to FA criteria. I would suggest deciding between the three of you what might need improving, or what to do now. I would suggest trying to improve those short casting sections, but only if you can. Otherwise, maybe get a peer review. Peanut4 (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)