Talk:Star Trek: Planet of the Titans/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jcc (talk · contribs) 10:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Hi and I will be reviewing this article for the GA Recruitment Centre and this will be my first review so feel free to correct me on any mistakes I make![reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality, no copyvios, spelling and grammar:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Seems ok, bar 24.9.255.206's edit. One main editor, Miyagawa.
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Prose review

Lead: If anything, it does seem a bit long around the second paragraph, but that is nit-picking a little. Spelling and grammar seem fine, though you might like to get rid of the red links regarding Jerry Isenberg.

The sentence " James Bond film franchise Production designer Ken Adam" needs to be sorted out in terms of capitalisation and that it just seems to be a mouthful to say, a couple of suggestions are below:

Ken Adam, the production designer for the James Bond films...
The James Bond films production designer, Ken Adam...

I'ved opted for the first suggestion and removed the red links for Isenberg. I looked at the second lead paragraph and removed the links of directors asked - it was rather superfluous and is pretty much repeated verbatim in the body of the article. Miyagawa (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

I have spot-checked a few, and all seems fine, with some interesting references and well described via Template:Cite web. Everything that needs to be referenced is.

Images

Is there no good images that could go into the infobox?

Just a quick fly-by comment (I'll address the others later tonight) - typically on film articles they use the film poster. However, for this one they didn't get that far, in fact they didn't shoot anything at all as it was cancelled at the script stage. So it didn't feel appropriate to put anything in the infobox image-wise. Miyagawa (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pass or fail?

@Miyagawa: As long as you address the concerns above, all seems like it is heading for a good pass.

Thanks for the review, and let me know if there is anything else you'd like me to look at. Miyagawa (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from User:Figureskatingfan

@Miyagawa:As I'm doing this as part of the GA Recruitment Centre, I got feedback from Figureskatingfan that I think you should be aware of on my recruitment page regarding my prose review at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Good_articles/Recruitment_Centre/Recruiter_Central/Archives/Jcc#Step_three:_your_review . You should follow her suggestions to get a pass, since my review of the prose was rather hasty. jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I've changed that line in the lead as suggested and cleared the article of contractions. I've also rejigged the article to break down the Production (now Pre-production) section into subsections and moved out a couple of paragraphs into a new plot section. I actually went to check the other articles on cancelled films and found that there aren't any which have actually reached GA, so the structure is really up in the air to a certain extent. I did a double check and found some duplicate links, so those have now been removed. I also noticed that I had accidentally inserted Povill instead of Kaufman at one point, and that is now fixed too. Miyagawa (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like the changes you've made, which means that you've fulfilled Criterias 1B and 3. However, I'd fail this article based on Criteria 1A, its prose. To that end, and to expedite things, I'll go ahead and copy-edit it without the more thorough review that I usually do. I have some questions, though:

The second half of the second paragraph in "Background" is unclear to me. It seems that Ellison disagreed with Trabulus about inserting Mayans in the film, and quit over it. I think that all you need to say is that they disagreed about inserting the Mayans into the film. I'd also reword the entire thing, like this: "Ellison's treatment featured the crew forced to travel back in time to prevent a Reptilian race from wiping out humanity at the "dawn of time". He met with Paramount executives, including Barry Trabulus, who recently read Chariots of the Gods? by Erich von Däniken (1968) and wanted the Maya civilization to be featured in the film. Ellison and Trabulus disagreed, and Ellison left the meeting refusing to have anything more to do with the film."

Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested before that an image of Roddenberry be included, perhaps in the "Background" section. What do you think about that?

I'd been trying to avoid it as I just don't like that shot of Roddenberry. It doesn't particularly look like him (although it is). However, I just checked and it was taken in 1976 - exactly the same time frame as the background section refers to. So I've added it. Miyagawa (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first time you mention the writers (Bryant and Scott), other than in the infobox, is in the "Plot" section. I suggest that you identify with their full names and links, and then remove the links in the "Pre-production" section.

That's what I get for moving sections around! :) I've moved the full names and links up to the plot section. Miyagawa (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be using British spelling; make sure that it's consistent, please.
I don't think it's necessary to include Ken Adam's Academy Award. I think you could just identify him as "Academy-award winning production designer who had worked on the James Bond films".

I've redrafted to remove the direct link to the award and worked it otherwise into the prose. Miyagawa (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the hassle and the inconvenience having two reviewers has created. Thanks for your patience, and for indulging Jcc and I. I'm sure that if you answer the above questions, I'll support a pass. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its no problem really - I'm sure I signed up for my articles to be reviewed by students before that section was taken off. Miyagawa (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]