Talk:Species (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 21:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 14, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. Thank you.
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film, please re-order sects accordingly.
Please place Influences and themes above Production.
Please expand the lede sect a tad bit more, so it can fully summarize the entire article's contents, per WP:LEAD. I'd suggest about three paragraphs of four sentences each.
Please re-order the lede intro sect, so it moves in the same chronological order as the body sects in the article itself, per WP:Manual of Style/Film.
Please improve the writing quality a bit -- several long sentences and run on sentences and sentences with too much use of commas, throughout.
Species is a 1995 American science fiction horror film directed by Roger Donaldson, written by Dennis Feldman and starring Ben Kingsley, Michael Madsen, Alfred Molina, Forest Whitaker and Marg Helgenberger as a motley crew of scientist and government agents who try to track down an alien seductress played by Natasha Henstridge before she successfully mates with a human male. -- way way way too long sentence. This can be broken up easily into three (3) sentences. Please look for this, throughout the article.
The film was poorly received by critics, but nevertheless turned out to be a box office success, grossing US$113 million ($175 million in 2015 dollars), and spawning one theatrical (Species II), as well as two direct-to-video sequels (Species III and Species: The Awakening). -- another example of a sentence that could be two shorter sentences.
Overall, writing style throughout article can be more concise and succinct.
Good use of quotations, only quibble is sect, Writing and development, please trim and or paraphrase the quotes in there.

2. Verifiable?:

Checklinks tool shows some redirected sites. Strongly suggest archiving all links to Wayback Machine by Internet Archive using archiveurl and archivedate fields.
USA film so please change date format to USA format: Day Month, Year. You already have some in USA style and some in Europe style, so this will increase uniformity and standardization of all citations.
I placed one citation needed tag, at end of Sequels sect.
Some cites appear to be missing fields. Please use WP:CIT templates and make sure you've provided as much information as possible to ease with verification of reliable sources.
Example of problem cite: Navarro, Yvonne; Feldman, Dennis (1 June 1995). Species: A Novel. Bantam. ISBN 978-0-553-57404-3. = missing page numbers.
Fugarino, Virginia S. "Journal of Folklore Research: JFR Review for Tracking the Chupacabra: The Vampire Beast in Fact, Fiction, and Folklore". Retrieved 2013-06-17. = accessdate is filled out wrong, please use Month Day, Year. What journal? What date of publication? What publisher? doi number? volume? issue? page numbers?
Please go through cites to make sure that type of info is added.

3. Broad in coverage?: Article is indeed broad in scope and coverage. Just keep in mind Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film, per above.

4. Neutral point of view?: Article is indeed presented in a neutral tone with matter-of-fact wording. No issues here.

5. Stable? Upon inspection of article edit history, the article is stable going back at least two months. Talk page shows no issues upon inspection back to 2014. No issues here.

6. Images?: One image used, fair use, very good job on image page at File:Speciesver3.jpg. No issues here.

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: Thanks for the review :) Here are my comments:

1.4. I've put Influences... above Production. Is there anything else that needs to be done?
1.6-7. I've edited the lead. Please let me know if you want me to go into more or less detail about any specific section.
1.8. Hopefully I've found most of them. I've read this about a dozen times now, so there are probably things that slipped through but which I won't notice.
1.11. I've done some changes, let me know if it needs a more thorough editing. I would probably do more, but I wanted to wrap this up for today, it's quite late now where I live.
2.3. Resolved :)
2.4-5. Re: page numbers in books, unfortunately I can't help with that; I didn't add those refs and don't have the books. I went through the history, and it seems that User:Igordebraga wrote the bulk of the article, adding both book refs with missing page #s. He has written numerous GAs, so I trusted his coverage of the sources. If this is necessary, I suppose he is the person to ask.
2.6. I'm using {{cite web}} here for Fulgarino's review since I don't have any information about the print version of the journal. It is mentioned as being in the 2011 issue here, but that's all the information I could find. Alternatively, judging from this page here, it may well be web-only content.

Daß Wölf (talk) 02:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reevaluation by GA Reviewer

Upon revisit, lede intro sect looks much better, good job!
Checklinks tool - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Species_%28film%29 shows no problems, excellent here.
Copyvio Detector tool - https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Species+%28film%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 - result = "Violation Unlikely 21.3% confidence" = EXCELLENT WORK HERE, THIS IS WHAT WE LIKE TO SEE, NICELY DONE !!!
Several of the citations have more field info, good job here.
Page numbers would certainly make it easier for other editors in the future. As far as a strict reading of WP:V, verifiability is still met. This would most likely not pass muster at WP:FAC, but I'm going to allow it for WP:GA. Going forward in the Quality improvement process, please try to get the page numbers for the books cited.
Overall quotation use looks a bit better.

Will post final analysis, below. — Cirt (talk) 03:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Daß Wölf:Have you taken some time to read over the instructions in my suggestion number 3, above, that is only optional and just something to consider as a suggested way to pay it forward ? — Cirt (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: See Talk:Max Havoc: Curse of the Dragon/GA1#Reevaluation by GA Reviewer :) Daß Wölf (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, just a suggestion to read over the instructions and consider it as an option only is all I ask. :) — Cirt (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passed as GA

Passed as GA. My thanks to GA Nominator for being so polite and responsive to GA Reviewer recommendations, above. — Cirt (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]