Talk:Steve Jobs (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 11:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing this for review, soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've got some points below that I think need to be sorted out before we move on. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The lead as it stands doesn't really cover the film's production, which it should to give a broad overview of the article. I suggest a third paragraph, between the two existing ones, with at least a sentence each for development, filming, post-production, and music. You should especially talk about the three different filming styles for the three acts, and the three different music styles for the three acts, and you should probably note that Sorkin created most of the dialogue himself. Done

I've added details about the Jobs casting process, the extensive film editing and music to the lead. Rusted AutoParts 18:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I really think this paragraph should note that the dialogue is almost all fictional, and the cinematography for the three acts. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Production

The first line of development should be combined with the next paragraph. Done
The development section should introduce Jobs and Isaacson's book, assuming that some readers will skip to the production section. Done
Sorkin, Jobs, and Fassbender shouldn't be linked again in the filming section. Done

Music

The second paragraph needs a copy edit, as it currently doesn't make complete sense. Done

You can add an additional comment below if you feel the paragraph still needs work. Rusted AutoParts 17:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit

This section should be a subsection of the reception section, as it is in response to the film, and really should be expanded. Is there no other information available? Done

See https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/9708399/Roessler_v_Universal_City_Studios,_LLC_et_al (NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Plaintiff Carl Roessler. (Aldrich, John) Date January 8th 2016). Can we have the legal case citation removed as (largely) irrelevant? 61.68.232.250 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Accuracy

This should also be a subsection of the reception section. Done

Other

There are a couple citation needed tags that I'm sure you will be able to replace with references. Done
All the web references in the article need to be archived. This is pretty important. Done

Ill aim to begin addressing these concerns tomorrow. I hope to have this completed by next week. Rusted AutoParts 04:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm frankly not the greatest in way of archiving sources. I'll message a few editors to see if someone could aid me with that. 17:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Rusted AutoParts

I'm needing a bit more time in way of learning to archive (a method I was informed about involves my email, which im hesistant on using for security reason, could be misguided worry, but still). Is there a deadline you'd like to set for this GA to be wrapped up? Rusted AutoParts 18:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usually they should be done in a week, but I'm happy to give you more time since I can see that you are actively trying to get this passed. As long as it is within reason, really. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts and Adamstom.97: Working on the archive-urls. If the case is that we just need to check they are archived, pls let me know; adding |archive-url= |archive-date= |dead-url= is slightly monotonous. — Sam Sailor 18:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know it can be a bit of a pain, but it is important to have archive links in case any of these sources go off-line. Hopefully it is a habit that more and more editors are getting into. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20 more sources to archive. Can't finish them tonight but hopefully they'll be done for tomorrow. Rusted AutoParts 20:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All done with the archiving. Rusted AutoParts 17:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. I know it was a lot of tedious work, but I think it is worth it. I'll go ahead and promote this now. Passed

- adamstom97 (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Adam. Rusted AutoParts 14:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]