Talk:Gravity (2013 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Prashant! (talk · contribs) 06:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

You should mention that its a "Science fiction Space thriller" not only science fiction thriller.
Character names should be introduced, as you are talking about "their" space shuttles. Its confusing as it's Clooney's or Bullock's (actors).
I also think its the story of Dr. Ryan (and only hers) struggle to land back on earth. So, correct it as Clooney's character doesn't struggle to get back on earth.—Prashant 17:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done :). --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 08:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant, after making various edits, I realize I need to reply to your points:

Consensus so far (see previous talks) is to present the movie as "science fiction" since this is what many sources use. Opinion on "space" is less clear; some think it's one genre label too many.

I think we can fix the "whose ferry is it" issue without the many words required by naming the characters

No need to drop the main spoiler already in the lede; we have leeway to summarize films without giving away precise plot points (spoilers should be given of course, but their place is in the plot section)

Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) while I agree with most of what CapnZapp says, I still don't see how the film can be called "science fiction"; it is no Star Wars or E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial to be called as such. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the extensive discussions on the Gravity talk pages, including archives, before discussing "is Gravity scifi?" further. Thank you, CapnZapp (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then it's fine. Plot section is great.—Prashant 12:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just walk by, I suggest this article need more infomation about the written, script and screenplay. The Development section are mostly casting, but development generally should be something more like how the filmmaker put resources together, how the scripts go, who will finance the film, something like that.--Jarodalien (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a good point. I added the financing details about film in the Development section. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 18:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 22 days Prashant!. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 19:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the main problem with the article is it's length. I mean the development section is very small. For films like this, it's below average. So, please expand it at least 4 times as it is "Universally acclaimed". So, you won't find fifficult to collect sources materials. All the best. When it's done with it, ping me to continue.—Prashant 12:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm doing it. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 20:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant! & Captain Assassin!, what's happening here? Finishing the review anytime soon?--Retrohead (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant!, please tell me what you want me to add in the production? --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 01:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what specifically can be added to the article. But, an article on such a masterpiece film such be a greatcoat. The article needs expansion. More production, development, filming, pre-production details should be added along with box-office and critical reception.—Prashant 19:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the review still going on? It's been open over three months at a very slow pace, and the last comment above tells me that I'm not exactly sure what is being reviewed right now, especially since I see nowhere where expansion is sorely needed. Wizardman 22:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited the article to format the long quotes in the Critical response section as blockquotes, per WP:Blockquote. Indeed, the second and third paragraphs there are quote farms, with almost no paraphrasing or significant description about the reviews, which is far from ideal in a GA. The article has three bare URLs, which need fixing. It makes me nervous when the reviewer doesn't point out that wording such as "put Gravity as one of the best space films" should be improved, and also ask for something to be done with the odd back-to-back HuffPo opinions on the movie that were diametrically opposed; I've edited these as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant!, you still want to continue? If "no" is the answer, never mind. But the article (with over 100 references) looks fully GA-worthy, although some slight c/e would still do. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash29792, Prashant! has had four months, as of today, to complete this review, and it's been over a month since the reviewer's last general post. I don't see things getting any better, so I'm returning this nomination to the pool in the hopes that some other reviewer can articulate just what it is the article needs, and also look at the actual prose and suggest improvements. With the GA cup in full swing, this will hopefully find a new reviewer before long. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]