Talk:Up (2009 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will conduct this review in a few steps.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~See below~~ GTG
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Seems fine
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	~~See below~~ GTG
	2b. 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).	~~See below~~ GTG
	2c. it contains no original research.	~~See below~~ GTG
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Seems to have adequate coverage
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	~~See below~~ GTG
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	~~See below~~ GTG
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Seems stable (within definition)
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All look fine (conservative note below)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	~~See below~~ GTG
	7. Overall assessment.	~~See below~~ GTG

Spotchecks seem okay.
1A: The prose is choppy in places (the production section has some truly blatant examples). It should be cleaned up.
Went through it a few times and reworded/merged statements. Also divided up the section by subsections. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1A: Numerous one sentence paragraphs.
Fixed all occurrences by merging them into other similar paragraphs. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1A: Some information is out of date. For example, the Cluster Balloons promotion.
Noticed that in my first read-through. It has been fixed, and have also updated the RT and Metacritic scores/access dates. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2A: Checklist shows two dead links.
Both were pulling from the same source. It has been fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2B: Music section is unreferenced.
Added citations. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2B: Release dates are uncited.
Added citations. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2B: Awards are nearly all uncited.
Added citations pulled from list article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2C: Who says that the score when Carl meets Muntz is "romantic"?
Reworded that section to remove the individual mentions. That can be mentioned on the soundtrack's article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3B: Cast list is too detailed. Please trim to the main cast members only.
Cut a few of the names out for the minor characters. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4: Terms like "just a few million" are POV.
Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6A: Conservative note: Screenshots from trailers produced prior to 1964 are contentious right now; the current agreement seems to be that they are PD (see this passing mention)
Haven't heard anything yet saying these are not public domain, so no reason not to remove it at this point. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6B: I would prefer to have ALT text for all images, to aid people with screenreaders.
Basic alt text added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article writer retired, there's two options to go here. The first is just to fail the nom, the second is to leave a note at the Film WikiProject and hope that someone picks this up. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from WP:FILM per the above notice, I've done my best to address the above points. Please let me know if you notice any other issues or areas for improvement to meet the GA criteria. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No more comments. Promoted! Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]