Talk:Salt (2010 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Starstriker7^(Talk) 16:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review start

Alright. I'll be taking this one up. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 16:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

Tis a bit on the lengthy side according to WP:FILMPLOT. As the movie doesn't have a nonlinear plot, you should shave it down a bit. Do so by 40 -50 words.
- I counted 725 words.. that's counting the actor's name in parenthesis. Without the actor's name, it's 706 words. From my previous GA, this was OK'ed. —Mike Allen `

Okay. I'll take it. :) --Starstriker7^(Talk) 04:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of this section was rather wordy, ie. "Waiting for her is the German arachnologist Michael Krause (August Diehl), who Winter states had campaigned tirelessly for her release." Simplify this down a bit if you can.
- Done by User:Igordebraga. —Mike Allen 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

There doesn't seem to be much prose involved here. After seeing the notation of the involved people in the plot section, I think this might be extraneous as well. This should be removed.
- Agreed. —Mike Allen 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support this assertion at all. The WP:MOSFILM guidelines don't prevent you from deleting the cast list as some editors are in favour of it but there wasn't a strong consensus and I doesn't seem like an improvement to me at all, to delete it instead of changing it.
The section has the short character overview the guidelines suggest. The Production section has a lot of Casting information thrown in that could be folded into to give a much better Cast section.

Production - Development, Writing, and Casting

[1] This reference is linked to a forum. From prior experience, this kind of stuff isn't acceptable. An alternate source needs to be found, because this part seems key to the production of the movie.
- I believe Igordebraga added this cite. It appears to be a post made from the writer, Kurt Wimmer, in 2002. —Mike Allen 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still, third-party sources are what form the basis of Wikipedia's verifiability. A forum with a post made directly by the director is by no means a third-party source. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 04:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Production - Filming

The second paragraph's first sentence is confusing. It should be rewritten for sake of clarity.
- Done. —Mike Allen 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The third paragraph as a whole is pretty confusing as well. It should be split into more sentences and rewritten.
- Done. —Mike Allen 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Production - Versions

Don't see any real problems here.

Soundtrack

This part also looks good.

Release

Nothing to report.

Release - Box Office

On my first run through this article, this portion also looks fine.

Release - Critical Reception

Whoa, those are a lot of refs bunched up in the first paragraph. I don't believe that the GA guidelines object to it, though, so streamlining it down to maybe one or two sources is optional. Moving a few of those sources to areas where they are cited later might clear up the congestion.

Release - Awards

Looks fine.

Sequels

If anything, it seems like this section would be the most likely to grow outdated. Check to see if there have been any updates on the sequel, ie. if it has been confirmed, and who the director will end up being.
- No updates so far. I have changed the heading to "Possible sequel". —Mike Allen 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

There are a conspicuously low number of pictures. It isn't mandatory per GA guidelines, but I'd suggest looking for more images to furnish this article.
- In the process of possibly gaining permission for some free photos of Jolie filming. If that doesn't work.. *gulp* .. I guess non-free images. —Mike Allen 04:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, this could use some copyediting. All throughout, sentences are rather wordy, and there are quite a few verb tense mess-ups, from what I see. (ie. using "have been" when just "were" would work) I'm not the best at English, but I definitely notice problems. None are bad enough to keep this article from GA, but still.
It looks complete and very near to GA. With the few tweaks I mentioned (plus any more tweaks you should make after I recheck the article a bit later), this should be all set and ready to go.
Bahaha, I was doing the ref checks when I clicked on one that froze up my browser...This should probably be replaced. Again, not mandatory, but it would save later peeps from a potentially nasty surprise.

^ Tatiana Siegel and Borys Kit (January 27, 2007). "Columbia Sprinkles 'salt' On Slate". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved January 23, 2011.

- I was not albe to reproduce this. The page worked fine for me. —Mike Allen 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then, never mind. :P --Starstriker7^(Talk) 04:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd check ref 69 [2]. I couldn't find the information from the webpage to support the correspondingly cited info Wikipedia article.
- Me either! Don't know why that was added... —Mike Allen 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, I think it's pretty good. I've checked about half of the references and they all (except where noted) seem to check out.

Pass

You and User:igordebraga have fulfilled all my basic concerns with the article, so I will pass this one. Congratulations. :D -Starstriker7^(Talk) 04:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]