Talk:The Twilight Saga: New Moon/GA1

GA Review

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

I will begin the review today. With a page like this, the review process can take some time, so please have patience with me as I am slowly trying to get back into Wikipedia. As said on my user page, I will "bust your butt", so prepare for a lot of work to be done (but the article looks pretty good at first glance). Look forward to working with you.

Reviewer: – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 16:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
I am passing the prose criteria, because it is decent and flows quite well. However, there are times when the prose seems like it is read from a list (e.g., the "Accolades" section). If you plan on taking this to FA status, I highly suggest a peer review as soon as you can devote the time. Other than that, it looks good. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 23:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
There seems to be no issue with this. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 16:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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):
Is there any way we can add more photos? – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 17:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I though I should clarify that adding more photos won't make or break the review. I was just curious if there were more photos out there that we could implement into the article to make it look better. It doesn't have to be a priority. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 20:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

Just to let you know, I am still here. There is a lot of reviewing to be done and I've been chipping away at it over the past couple of days. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 18:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the extreme delay. I had to make an unexpected trip and then fell ill. But I am back. I will, hopefully, have the time to finish the review by Sunday night. I appreciate your patience. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 02:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and MoS:

This is only an opinion, but every time I see, The Twilight Saga: New Moon, it seems a bit much when it's mentioned at least two or three times per paragraph. Is there any way to trim it down to just New Moon (mentioning something in the leading paragraph)? – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 20:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be okay to have (also known as New Moon) or something similar in the lead? If so, I can trim down the longer name. I'll comment/fix the other "problems" below as soon as I can. ChaosMaster_Chat 15:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That is what I would recommend. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 23:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leading section: ~~In the second paragraph, the second sentence needs clarification. Biggest single day domestic gross in film history?~~ – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 23:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fix both the multiple mentiones of "New Moon" and the lead problem. However, I might have gone too far with the lead, moving the reception after the DVD information; I think I need a second opinion about this, maybe even a suggestion on how it could be improved. Also, is there anyway to remove the line that cuts through the infobox? ChaosMaster_Chat 14:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel that moving the reception after the DVD release information takes away from the article? As far as I'm concerned, the lead looks good (I made a minor fix and would like to know what you think) and it flows well. Also, I do not see a line cutting through the infobox on my computer. I am working with Firefox... – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 01:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember what I was referring to. I looked over the differences and the edit you made and like the current revision. And maybe the line is just on my computer and/or browser (my luck, lol). ChaosMaster_Chat 02:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are using Internet Explorer, I remember having lots of problems with that particular browser. It was a pain in the... May I suggest working with Firefox when editing on Wikipedia? – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 23:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cast: ~~For the main characters, a brief description should suffice. Anything more is redundant to the "Plot" section. Also check the grammar and punctuation. I see a lot of mistakes.~~ – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 23:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed this. ChaosMaster_Chat 18:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References:

~~There is one tag in the "Filming and post-production" section. Please take care of it.~~ – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 17:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other:

Would it also be wise to make the awards section into prose with references? I know that section will probably pose a bump in the road for the GA review. ChaosMaster_Chat 14:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe it would be a good idea to make the awards section into prose. The awards section needs references anyway, so you may want to get a head start on that. Possibly not listing every single award, only notable ones? What do you think about that idea? – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 18:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the references I can accumulate, I'll narrow the awards down. For example, The Kids Choice Awards can be considered notable, but if I only happen to get two to three sentences out of the notable ones, I'll include the KCA ones (with a reference, of course). ChaosMaster_Chat 02:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Converted to prose, although, the section could use some edits to help it "flow" better. Don't know whether you or anyone else can agree with this though, so I'll leave it alone for now. ChaosMaster_Chat 18:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bold fomatting in the infobox doesn't fall under MOS:BOLD, right? There seems to be a user who keeps reverting that using that excuse. I personally do not see a problem with the current format, but just wanted to double check and bring this up for the GA review since you are probably more experianced with this type of formatting. ChaosMaster_Chat 01:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should actually add this and ask a very blunt question: what should we do? ChaosMaster_Chat 02:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the changes made by the user and disagree with them. Unless the references say otherwise (and I have yet to look through all of them), there's no reason to replace the term "domestic" with "the United States and Canada" (or something similar to that effect). I fail to understand how using the term "domestic" (in this article) violates the essay WP:WORLDVIEW. I am in agreement of undoing this particular edit, if you wish to do so. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 01:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll undo it then. ChaosMaster_Chat 02:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ms Sarita. About using the word "domestic", please read this. Thanks. :) Mike Allen 04:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MikeAllen, thank you very much for the link. It provided a much better explanation (one I could actually understand and apply to this article). ChaosMaster, after reading what MikeAllen has provided, I do agree that you may want to sift through the article and take out as much of the "domestic" terms as possible (I would not put Canadian, though, unless the citation says otherwise...New Moon is an American film). – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 23:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'll do this ASAP.... though that might not be that soon.... ChaosMaster_Chat 00:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time. There's no rush. I have finally made it to the references section of the GA criteria...it's gonna be a while (sorry this process is taking so long). I'll keep in touch. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 20:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for suggesting Firefox, I like the browser when using wikipedia better. Regarding replacing domestic with American, is there any program that would allow me to do it faster? Just asking. If not, ill get to it within the next 48 hours. ChaosMaster_Chat 00:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How's the review progressing? It was going well but it seems to have stalled now. Are we near a decision? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I had to leave town on a family emergency and just got home (and back to the Internet) last night. I will be continuing the GA process tonight/tomorrow morning. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 19:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have some rl matters to handle, as evident by almost no edits and what you said, I can just take over this review, that's not a problem. I'll look this over within the next couple days. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the issues I found:

It seems like a lot of what's referenced in the lead is reffed later on. As such many of those can probably be removed. Refs in the lead should be kept to a minimum.

That's the only thing I found, and it's not really a GA issue, so as a result I'm going to pass this article as a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]