Talk:L.A. Takedown/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 23W (talk · contribs) 16:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have this in about a fortnight. 23W 16:58, 30 August 2014 (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, 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:

First round

I'll have more to say later, but the use of IMDb and some blogs have me puzzled. Can you explain how Dangerous Universe, Real Political Face Talk and Movieshrink are reliable sources? (pinging Daß Wölf) 23W 03:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Real Political Face Talk and Movieshrink are linked as critic reviews from IMDb. I admit, Dangerous Universe is self-published and doesn't seem to be a reliable source. I've replaced its mentions and removed text that was only supported by this source. What do you suggest to do about the IMDb citations? Daß Wölf (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is (for the most part) user-submitted, and I wouldn't be surprised if the two sites added in their reviews to the reviews page. As for IMDb itself used for refs, they can be replaced with a citation of the film itself, i.e.: Mann, Michael (director, writer) (August 27, 1989). L.A. Takedown (Television film). NBC. (You can copy and paste that citation). 23W (stalk) 01:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've replaced the IMDb refs and removed the Movieshrink ones. However, I'm not sure what to do with Real Political Face Talk. It's currently used for two statements: that the film's soundtrack features Billy Idol and that the German DVD has bonus content in the form of scene selections. I've seen the DVD and both are true. Should I cite the film again there or maybe remove the sentences, since they aren't very important? Daß Wölf (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Daß Wölf: I think you can cite the film and DVD for those two, especially if it gives song credits at the end. 23W (stalk) 00:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checked and done. I'm not sure if there were multiple Billy Idol songs as the old reference implies, but I've put the one that is mentioned in the credits. Daß Wölf (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. 23W (stalk) 00:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second round

I guess I should give this a full review now that I have the time. I gave the article a slight copyedit; feel free to revert it if you disagree with what I've changed.

The one paragraph in the synopsis section is a bit long; consider splitting it in two at somewhere logical.
Replace the en dashes with commas and end the sentences with full stops for the cast list.
According to Mann, "one day they simply bumped into one another. [Adamson] didn't know what to do: arrest him, shoot him or have a cup of coffee." direct quotation needs a citation immediately following it, per WP:MINREF.
Perhaps merge the release and reception sections; also, merge the first paragraph of the reception section with the paragraph after it.
I wouldn't want to merge them since a lot of the critic reviews are retrospective and unconnected to the film's release. However, it makes sense since both sections are fairly short. Do what you prefer about this, I don't have prevailing arguments for either merging or not. Daß Wölf (talk)
As they're a paragraph each, I've merged them. I think it's pretty logical now; what do you think? 23W (stalk) 02:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, looks better now. Daß Wölf (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mann's statement in the remake section isn't long enough to be a block quote. It also needs a citation following it (WP:MINREF).
Perhaps merge the last two paragraphs, as they relate to each other enough.
"Better effects" is a bit too subjective here; perhaps rephrase to "more advanced effects" or something like that. Same thing with "simple, straightforward" and "fleshing out"; you should probably cite the reviewers in-text for such claims.
I did away with the whole sentence. I went thru the LaFrance's blog and apparently this had been a bit of unconscious editorializing/WP:OR on my part. Once I merged the paragraphs the sentence became redundant anyway. Daß Wölf (talk)
Looks OK. 23W (stalk) 02:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Nice work. Make sure incorporate any of these book sources if you decide to take this to featured article status. On hold for a fortnight. 23W (stalk) 00:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All done, let me know if there's anything else that needs to be changed. I'll take a look at the book sources when I have some more free time. Daß Wölf (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Pass! 23W (stalk) 02:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yipeee! Thanks for the quick review, it was really fun! :) Daß Wölf (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; same here. Are you planning on taking on Heat (1995 film)? 23W (stalk) 03:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's one of my all-time favorites. It'll be definitely a lot more work, though, I'll need to set time aside for it. Daß Wölf (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]