Talk:The Italian Job (2003 film)/GA1

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Minor spelling issues. I found survey (give ya a hint, it's in the plot section) and Ukrainian misspelled, and that was with a quick WORD search. Easily fixable. Other than some spelling, and maybe some comma errors, the prose is pretty well written. One problem though, I would like to see something more than "Critic X gave the film a B-, or something like, "epic fireballs, car chases edited into edgy demolition joyrides, and a demon squad of cutely delineated cool-jerk crooks who deadpan their way through a caper as weightless as it is far-fetched." It's a nice quote, but it doesn't really scream "critical analysis". Try paraphrasing more and quoting large chunks less (quote when you have no real choice to quote, which is when it cannot be turned into someone's own words).

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Per MOSFILM, listing the film's ratings in different countries is trivia. Without context as to why it got those ratings they basically hold no value. This sentence--"the plot and characters of this film differ significantly from those of its source material"--is a problem. What is defined as "significant". It's a mighty word that is rather subjective at times, unless you're directly quoting someone. Sentence works just as well without it. Use of the past tense in the plot section, for instance: "he was a cousin of a Ukrainian..." - He "was"? I think even when you're dead you still are. "Hastily", subjective and unnecessary. Also, "Casting" should really be with "Production" it all goes together. I'd place the text between the first and second paragraph of the "Production" section.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
No IMDb, really glad to see that. The sources appear to be good. I didn't see any that I have not had the experience of seeing (or using) before in featured film articles, which is good.

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
You capture the basic idea, but I'd like to see some expanding. The reception section should be the easiest to expand (critics are right there at RT).

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Per WP:MOSFILM and WP:FUC, images in the article, unless accompanied by critical commentary, are generally a no-no. I'm not sure what illustration is needed to show that the film had Mini Coopers in it. The fact that it had the same cars doesn't really mean it needs an image to prove it. Atleast not just a generic image of the coopers on the subway. If there was more context behind it, I could see, but the image really doesn't serve a purpose beyond eye candy, and the article isn't that large that it needs eye candy..

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I did not list every 1a issue, that would become tedious. My suggestion is to look at what I did point out and see if you can find other instances of this in the article. If you're unsure, review User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a, it's an excellent tool for these things. I'll be monitoring the article so I can keep up to date on your progress, this way you don't have to wait a week to get passed if you satisify all issues. Cheers. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed. Please keep expanding the article. The critical reception section can still be added to, plus the production section (hopefully someone has a DVD with commentary). Cheers. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One minor note: as far as I can tell, "surveil" is not a misspelling, but means "to engage in surveillance". Mr. Absurd (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that WORD doesn't know it (I checked elsewhere, you're right it does exist). The fact that WORD doesn't recognize it (not that that's proof of anything), and since it isn't a title or proper name, makes me think that maybe the sentence should be rewritten to use the words actual meaning of "surveillance"; you know, for the casual readers who might not know what "surveil" is. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Bignole, what are the current outstanding issues? I think Cliff Smith has taken care of most of the problems. Anything still causing a problem? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 11:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]