Talk:Iron Man 2/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 19:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm going to give this a review as part of the GA drive going on at the moment. I'm going to give the article a read through now and add any queries below. Miyagawa (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plot: Remove the link to Russia as it falls foul of WP:OVERLINK.
"Vanko attacks Stark while racing at the Circuit de Monaco, using an arc reactor of his own powering whip-like energy weapons." Should be made clear that Stark is one that is racing, as it could be misinterpreted to read as if it was Vanko who was.
Is it worthwhile saying that the post-credits scene led into Thor rather than saying "as seen in" as it sounds a little past tense, and the events of that film take place presumably after this one.

Cast: Are there citations for the Stan Lee/Larry King line and the Tanoai Reed line?
Post-production: The ILM abbreviation needs to be spelt out the first time you use it.
Music: Could a brief overview be added to say why AC/DC were chosen/asked to do the film album? It's a bit unusual for a band to do an entire movie's soundtrack. In fact, the only other example I can only think of is Queen and Flash Gordon.
Distribution: You've got some single sentence paragraphs that would be better off merged with other paragraphs, for example the short final line in Video games, as well as Release and Home media would all be suitable to be merged (not together, within their own subsections).
Box office: Might be worthwhile working the premiere information from the lead into this section as all lead information should also be contained within the article.
General: If there are links already in the article, then you don't need to include them in the image captions.

I think that'll do for now. Let me know when you've addressed those points and I'll take a second look. Miyagawa (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I gave it a go:

Got rid of the Russia link
Reworded the racing sentence
It may be, however there was a long, long, long (long) discussion about the wording of that hammer sentence. It'll be in one of the discussion archives if you want to see the specifics of it

Cast: added a citation for Stan Lee. Couldn't find a reliable source for Reed's appearance, so if the film itself doesn't work as a source that may have to be removed for the time being.
Post-pro: ILM is now spelt out
Music: There's a bit of an explanation for AC/DC's involvement on the page for the soundtrack (although it is fairly fluffy/"press release"y). I'm not sure if a better explanation was ever given, beyond the director's fondness for the band.
Distribution: Moved the release and video game sentences into the larger paragraphs. I think the separate Home Media releases are probably better served being left separate so I left that as is for the moment
Box office: added the premiere info here
General: got rid of the links on image captions

Look good? -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll give it a second run through tonight once I'm home from work and check the article through the toolkit. Miyagawa (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were ready to go, and then I noticed something... there's no citations for the Accolades table. Also, citations 81, 110, 111 and 112 need at least the publisher and access dates added in addition to anything else appropriate in order to make them match the formatting of the other citations you've used. Once that's done, I think we're there. Miyagawa (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try to get that all fixed up in the next day or two and post again here when it's done. Cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added citations to the accolades table, and filled in refs 81, 110, 111, and 112. Look good? -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Ok, I think we're there. Good job! Miyagawa (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]