Talk:Willow (1988 film)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
the cast section needs to be rewritten in prose. Perhaps also consider if you can find a way to do so for theu list in the sequels section.

B. MoS compliance:
some of major sections are missing, such as soundtrack, ~~reception~~, etc.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
The reception information should be moved to its own section Done

B. Focused:
~~plot section is too long~~
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
There is only the infobox cover; there are no screenshots to depict the film.

Also, because of the claim in Visual effects, a short clip of some of the morphing may also be appropriate (since a screenshot would not easily suffice). Given that it is an important part of the creation and notability of the film, it may be a good idea to upload, though it would have to be in ogv format.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

The release section needs to be split. The reception, reviews and criticism should be in it's own section and information on the release itself should be in its own.

Per WP:MOS, the Plot section is fine, and fairly short compared to the majority of film articles. Also, a soundtrack section is not mandatory. In addition, I fixed your concerns with the Reception. Wildroot (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Film Style Guidelines a section on the soundtrack is usually added. Given the level of coverage Willow has, I am certain there is imformation out there about the soundtack, enough to satisfy WP:V that it exists at the least, if not more.じんない 23:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I guess I just need to find a suitable photo,~~ ~~fix the Cast~~ ~~and write about the Soundtrack~~. Good idea and suggestion. I will eventually get to that. Wildroot (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While that will go a long way (i really suggest you try and find, or ask someone for, a clip of the morphing scene at the wikiproject and explain that it is important to represent the impact of the work on development of the technology.

However, the character list could use some tweaking still. Give some description what those characters are in the form of a sentence or two. See Casablanca for a good idea what I mean. And remove the red-linked name unless you plan to make an article in the future for that person.じんない 00:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know what you mean. Also, I was not trying to sound sarcastic with that previous comment. Sometimes I talk like that. Don't worry, I will get this handled eventually. Like tomorrow....or something. Wildroot (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the general concerns. However, even if I try and ask other editors at the WikiProject talk page, I highly doubt anyone would offer assistance. Sorry. Let me know what you think. Wildroot (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well overall i think this article has come with a significant improvement. However, the lack of a soundtrack section is key because the information is out there and easily available. GA articles shouldn't be missing any relevant sections and a quick search on google has shown that there is a soundtrack out there.じんない 08:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? Sorry, but I added a Soundtrack section. It's right there in the article. I think Willow is ready for GA-status. Wildroot (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add a cite for it and you'll be done. Try MusicBrainz if you can.じんない 21:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added citations for the album section. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ebert, Siskel, Kael and?[edit]

I read on IMDB that the two-headed dragon was called the "Ebersisk" as a direct reference to Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel ([1]). Likewise, i assume that the evil general Kael was named after Pauline Kael. Are there any other film critics aimed at in this movie?--RCS (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]