Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jurassic Park (franchise)/1

Jurassic Park (franchise)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Consensus was to delist, issues not addressed. Malkinann (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has numerous references tags, and I believe certain sections such as the critical reception and development sections could be expanded to give a more in-depth view of the entire film series. The development section is especially important in a film series article. See the Halloween franchise for an example of this. The critical reception could have individual critic's opinions of the films and compare it to the others. I also belive the article could use a copy edit.--EclipseSSD (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Too many requests for citation, and I agree with the need for a copyedit throughout. Parts don't even seem to make sense to me:

"Before the book was published, Crichton put up a non-negotiable fee for $1.5 million as well as a substantial percentage of the gross. Warner Bros. and Tim Burton, Columbia Tristar and Richard Donner, and 20th Century Fox and Joe Dante also bid for the rights,[2] Universal further paid Crichton $500,000 to adapt his own novel,[3] but Universal eventually acquired them in May 1990 for Spielberg." Apart from the fact that it's poorly written, it seems to be saying that Crichton paid someone $1.5 million before he'd even had his book published?

"Many rumors have surrounded the project since it was first reported, many surrounding plot and script ideas, and new logos." Surrounding the surrounded?

"Spielberg himself told him that he would direct the sequel, if one would ever occur." Sequels occur?

The Reception section needs to be fleshed out.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. A lot of work is needed to bring this to GA standard. The lead is a disaster; even the first sentence is disastrous. Deep copyediting (aka a complete rewrite) is essential for many sections. After the opening sentence, the last paragraph of the lead would be a second example. For a third, how about "Michael Crichton originally conceived a screenplay around a pterodactyl being cloned from fossil DNA." – that's poor sentence order and no punctuation. Here is one interpretation: After being cloned from a fossil, Michael Crichton's first pregnancy was a screenplay caused by walking around a pterodactyl.

Plentiful "very successful"s need to be more specific and reliably sourced.

The dinosaurs table is not a good way to present this information (the cast table is only just bearable). The continuity section is listy. Critical reception by table is unacceptable for the same reason. The video games section seems no better, with the unsourced and unreadable "There was also a game available on the Microsoft Xbox console and also the Playstation 2 as well as the PC called Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis where the goal of the game was to create and manage their own version of Jurassic Park, in a manner somewhat similar to the Zoo Tycoon games." Geometry guy 21:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. It's not even close to GA standards. The article suffers from weak prose, as highlighted by MF and GG above. There are stubby sections and too many poorly-crafted embedded lists. Further, several sections are under-referenced and underdeveloped. Majoreditor (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Wow, a whole lot of {{fact}}s. It also contains a lot of trivia, section-stubs like "Comic series," etc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]