Talk:Thunderbird 6/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BelovedFreak 15:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Well written, just one query below. Compliant with relevant MoS points.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Plenty of citations to reliable sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers all major aspects and stays focused.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral and balanced.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No problems here.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images have appropriate FU rationales, the two images used outside of the infobox complement critical discussion in the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A well-written, well-researched article. I have just one query before listing this, and a few other suggestions which you can take or leave as you like!

Query

• In the "release" section, you have the sentence "Thunderbirds expert Chris Bentley suggests that the shelving of film indicated that United Artists had lost faith in distributing the Thunderbirds franchise in the wake of the disappointing box office returns for Thunderbirds Are Go." I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you referring to the time between production and classification, and the actual release? In which case, are you missing a "the"? Or do you mean something else entirely? In which case you've lost me.
  • The sentence has been re-ordered to form:
    Commenting on the six-month postponement between classification and release, Thunderbirds historian Chris Bentley conjectures that United Artists had lost faith in distributing the Thunderbirds franchise in light of the disappointing box office returns for Thunderbirds Are Go, and therefore intentionally shelved the sequel between January and July.
    The dates in question are definitely classification (January) and release (July, half a year later).

Further suggestions

• You have used the "month day, year" format for dates, which tends to be the US way of doing it. British topics tend to use "day month year" per WP:STRONGNAT.
• Is the 2004 Thunderbirds film considered a sequel? I'm wondering about its inclusion in the infobox, as I didn't get the impression that it was a direct follow on to this film.
• In the lead, the sentence beginning "While British actors John Carson and Geoffrey Keen..." - seems to be about two different things. Is the change of the design of the puppets connected to the voice actors? It seemed like maybe that should be two different sentences.
• In the plot, it might be worth saying who Brains is at his first introduction, and perhaps explaining what International Rescue is. I understood the plot OK without knowing, but I would have preferred a little context.
  • This part has been altered a bit.
• In the production section, it might be worth saying when Thunderbirds Are Go came out, and/or somehow mentioning the year that this film started being produced. You get to it later on in the "design" section, but I was wondering at this point.
• In the casting section, it says "...whose lines are pronounced in a more mature manner by Sylvia Anderson." - is this in comparison to something? Is it more mature sounding than a different actor who played her? Or more mature than Anderson voiced her previously?
• In "Stunts", "Hughes ... subsequently reported that it was only the first occasion in her career..." - is "only" redundant here?

And that's about it. This is pretty much at GA standard already. If you could let me know what you think of that one point above. --BelovedFreak 16:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, and thanks for this review. Resolved points have been struck through. SuperMarioMan 20:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above, I have also cut out references duplicated within sentences, since on review this approach to sourcing leaves the text rather cluttered. A minimum of one citation at the end of each sentence is the current standard in the article. SuperMarioMan 20:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that point about the shelving. I'm happy to list it now. Well done, you've done a really good job. I must confess to not really having any interest in Supermarionation etc., yet I always find your articles a good read! I had noticed a lot of citations, which I didn't mention in the end, but I think it looks better now in that respect. :) Congratulations! --BelovedFreak 08:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks once again. SuperMarioMan 14:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)