Talk:Cloverfield/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 03:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take this one for review. I've had a bit of free time open up, so hopefully I'll get some thoughts down soon and we can go from there. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some things that I think need to be addressed before this article can be promoted to GA:

The big second paragraph in the lead needs to be completely re-written to be a summary rather than just randomly noting some key point from throughout the article. It should also make it clearer that the announcement of the film was a surprise.
The plot summary is a little long. It needs to be between 400 and 700 words (the format that it is written in indicates that the first paragraph is part of the summary, so if this was not intended then I suggest re-writing it so that opening is more of a {{Hatnote}} and the rest of the summary focuses on the action rather than saying "The first segment..." etc.)
The cast section is unsourced. Also, you are using three different cast listings (for the infobox, lead, and cast section); you should only really be using one, based on the film's official billing, with maybe a few extra actors who are not included in that added to the end of the full cast list.
The "Music and sound" section is only about music...
The critical reception has quite a bit of direct quoting in it that could be paraphrased and cut down on a little.
Since this franchise follows a sort of shared universe model, I think it is best to leave discussion of the other films to the actual franchise page and focus on direct sequels in the "Sequel" section here. I suggest all of the content in the section be moved to Cloverfield (franchise) or the appropriate film page if it is not already there, and replace it with a main article link to the franchise page and the content in the last paragraph of the current section (you may need to add mention that there have been other Cloverfield films that are not direct sequels to make the latest quotes make sense).
All references need to be archived.

Those are my initial thoughts. I actually have a couple other pretty major things that I think need to be done here, but I'll let you get these first things out of the way and then we can work on the production and release sections. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the nominating user has decided that they are unable to complete this review, but I am unwilling to let it fail because of that so I have gone looking for interest from other users to take it up and @Sock has kindly offered to get involved. Sock, let me know once you have gotten yourself familiar with the article and had a look through my comments above. Thanks again! - adamstom97 (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again for the record: @Sock has been doing some work on the article and feels that there is too much work to be done before he would be happy to nominate the article to GA himself. The discussion we had on this can be found in this version of my talk page under "Cloverfield". Because of this, I am going to fail this review. Once Sock and any other interested editor has improved the article to their liking, it should be nominated again and I would happy to get back involved at that point. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]