Talk:Cars (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) 20:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm going to review this nomination. My method is to give overall comments on the article, review it section by section, suggest improvements, check all the references and finally compare to the Good Article Criteria. I'll leave a note on the nominator's talkpage when I'm ready for your response. Rcsprinter (gab) @ 20:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall comments

This article is about a well known film and receives 2580 views per day. It has been around since 2004 well before the film was released, and created by an IP. There is no history in its move log. There have been many editors performing expansions in the past 10 years, most recently on 7 January 2014 by Koala15 (the nominator). As the protection log shows, the page has not been immune to attacks of vandalism and has endured edit wars and instability, but as the latest protection was two years and one day ago, it's not a concern. It has been nominated for both FA and GA in the past, but they were in 2006 when it looked like this, so obviously there has been much improvement. There are no ambiguous internal links but two dead external links are within (I'll mention those later). Overall, the article's shape, structure and content look good when scrolled through but we'll see what the detailed examination brings up.

Section analysis

Lead

Infobox: the starring field is quite long. Are there some guidelines of how many people should be included here? I would say that only the very main characters' actors should appear there, but it appears to include Paul Dooley whose character is important but not essential to the story. There is a cast section for this, take 5 or 6 names out of the infobox. Infoboxes are of course designed to concisely summarize the facts of the article but not to add every actor to. Done
The theatrical poster is not very high quality; it makes the whole article look fuzzy. I'm aware non-free artwork is supposed to be the lowest resolution but when it changes the look and feel of the article I feel it should be made a bit better. Can you find an improved version? Done
The lead text again has a long list of names. Perhaps more than the first few can be added here but there is still a cast section - is it wholly necessary to include every person with a cameo in the supposedly concise lead? Done
Need a reference for the Cars Toons part - is this still airing? Done

The rest of the lead is OK, and there are some interesting facts there as well as some references, so that gives you some up-points.

Plot

The plot section is always a hairy subject in Wikipedia film or book articles, but I think it's been done right in this instance. It conveys all the important points and essential story parts without turning into a spoiler and also uses developed vocabulary, something not often seen here. The links are moderately placed and aren't too pushy with the reader. In fact, I don't think I have any criticisms of it.

Cast

It's an alright list, with some refs.

The main article link isn't quite right.. the list here is actors, and the list there is characters. It would be better as some other hatnote; perhaps {{see also}}, {{further information}}, {{details}} or something which indicates there is a slight shift in viewpoint when moving to the "main" article. Done
The links to the characters from Luigi downwards link to redirects. To avoid them becoming dead in future, I suggest linking directly to List of Cars characters#Luigi. Done

Production

All appears to be good. Some interesting facts and images included, such as the work-in-progress screenshot (is there a better name for a non-computer screen frame?). Pretty much every claim is referenced and also there are quite a few quotes in the prose.

"Concept for a brand-new animated feature." is the same wording as the source. Could it be altered? Done

Soundtrack

Quite a short section, but it is mainly dealt with in a dedicated article which the section links to. Important points are mentioned - famous artists and key song. All referenced again.

Release

Why did Steve Jobs make the release announcement? Everybody associates him with Apple, you should give a brief explanation of why he is announcing Pixar movies. Done
"Additional extras not seen on the DVD have since been released on the official DVD website." - Can you say what? "Additional extras" doesn't tell anyone anything. Done
Video game subsection needs at least a little content in it. Say when it was released, what it was called, the platforms it was available on and a couple of things about reception. Don't delegate all of that over to Cars (video game). Done

Reception

Long-windedly summarizes what people thought. The Tl;Dr is in the first sentence and the rest is full of refs.

This is a big wall of text. Insert an image of something along the side to break it up - one of the reviewers who said something or whatever. Done
Could you give some figures for the assertion that "[Cars] lost to Ice Age: The Meltdown in worldwide totals."? Done

Similar films

This appears to have quite a wide scope, and I'm sure there are many car related movies and man-finds-abandoned-town movies. This needs narrowing and an image.

Sequels

"Main article" problem again - see above.
Cars 2 info is unreferenced. Done

The see also section has too much white space, jig it around a bit. However, there are not too many things wrong with this article and I think it will pass. Next comes analysis of the references. Done

References

The number of each ref I give is correct as of revision 592200621; if any have been added since then it will have moved around.

If there is no comment on a ref assume I have reviewed it and found no problems.

Ref 1 - doesn't mention Ice Age Done
Ref 4 is a bit dodgy, a passing mention in an article about something else isn't as strong as a cite from something about Cars 2 Done
Ref 7 I will assume good faith on, as Google Books doesn't have an ebook for it
Ref 8 doesn't give any support to the claim - there are no mentions of Larry the Cable Guy nor International Harvester L-170
Ref 62 is dead

If you can put a tick after or strike through any items which have been addressed that would be useful. Rcsprinter (orate) @ 18:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i checked everything that i fixed. I just don't know what to with the similar films section and i think it is too short for an image. And how is ref 62 dead? It shows up for me. Koala15 (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is ref 62 on the revision linked to. It has now become ref 70 because of your changes. Rcsprinter (rap) @ 19:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i replaced it. Koala15 (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, the article has now passed the review. Promoting to GA... Rcsprinter (confer) @ 22:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: