Talk:Interstellar (film)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 07:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I will review this article. Thank you. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comments
The lead, which is usually supposed to touch on all sections, does not have anything from scientific accuracy section."His brother, director Christopher Nolan, had" — You've already mentioned him being a director in the development section.Add the year for Miss Julie, Transcendence, Inception, The Dark Knight Rises, Man of Steel."was scheduled to last for four months" — Scrap "for"."and involved hundreds of extras as well as some 130 crew members, most of them local" — Rephrase this as "and involved hundreds of extras in addition to 130 crew members, most of whom were local""mock spaceships" — Spaceships were used to represent the planets? Strange. Are you sure this is right?"situation on Earth portrayed in early scenes" — "situation on Earth portrayed in the early scenes".Wikilink "terabytes"."asymmetrical, so the finished black hole ignored it.[59] Nolan found the finished effect was understandable, provided he maintained consistent camera perspectives: "What we found was as long as we didn't change the point of view too much, the camera position, we could get something very understandable"" — Looks a bit vague. Do clarify this."The portrayal of what a wormhole would look like is considered scientifically correct" — According to whom?"Correct depiction of the Penrose process was also praised" — Who praised it? Critics? Do clarify this.nb 1 is unosurced.Add the year for Furious 7, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, Avatar, Gravity, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, Pacific Rim, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1, Frozen, Shrek 2, The Day After Tomorrow, Monsters University, World War Z, Insomnia and Dumb and Dumber To.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
The sources are good too. The article could do with a little more copyediting but looks good enough for GA criteria, Cognissonance. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)