Talk:2012 (film)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer:  JoeGazz  ♂ 19:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick-Fail Good Article Assessment
This article was assessed against the quick fail criteria. This is how the article, as of July 15, 2011, compares against the quick fail criteria:


 * 1. No obvious non-reliable sources?: Neutral
 * 2. Is it neutral?: Pass
 * 3. No outstanding cleanup tags?:
 * 4. Article is not subject of recent/current edit war?: Pass
 * 5. Changing in article is not rapid? Pass
 * Reason for Closure Decision: I have passed this article against the QF criteria since there is only a minor concern that I have with referencing, which is that the "Plot" section has no references, which is a problem, please add some.

These items all need to say Pass by them in order for the reviewer to move on to the next stage of reviewing. If one said fail, there will be in indication as to why. The reviewer will indicate the final status here: ✅ —  JoeGazz  ♂ 21:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello there, thanks for reviewing this but I must inform you that Wikipedia has a rule that plot sections do not need references and thus per the general rule, the plot is fine.  That Ole Cheesy Dude  ( Talk to the hand! ) 23:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for informing me of this, I am not an avid Movie article editor so I didn't know this or wasn't aware. If that is the case, then please link me to the policy or rule and I will pass that portion.  JoeGazz  ♂ 00:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FILMPLOT.  That Ole Cheesy Dude  ( Talk to the hand! ) 00:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Main Assessment
-- Update: All I have to say is "Wow", you did a great job with responding and I certainly appreciate it. I would like to start off by saying, this article is very well written, it has great accordance with the manual of style and the majority of the things below are in my opinion will help get the article as a top notch good article, although there are a few things that are needing to be fixed per WP:MOS.
 * Generally, throughout the article, you use the word "while". Can you think of another word to use? Maybe "At the same time..." or something similar.
 * In general, and I know this may be hard, but the article has two total images, could you add more. Be creative, add pictures of places where they shot, add logos of who the production companies are, etc.
 * Logos of the production companies would violate copyright and there are only limited available free images with a written rationale for the article, but I have added a Danny Glover image.


 * You use the abbreviation "AF1" for what I assume to be "Airforce One". That is a big no-no, that's a MOS fix that needs to be done.
 * You use an abbreviation, or what seems to be, "spec". Can you please use the full word, it could mean "specification" or "special" just because of the letters that are the same in the beginning.
 * It's a specific film term for a script written without major detail, instead of replacing, I've provided a link


 * In the sentence "and to make it for less than the estimated budget.", please reword that, it is not proper English. Possibly "and it was produced for less than budgeted."
 * "It was given a wide release in India on November 13, 2009" doesn't need to be separate, you should include India in the list of countries where it was released on November 13, 2009.
 * You use the word "Therefore" in the "Box office" section, that is a qualifier and needs to be changed.
 * Removed altogether.

Overall, I would pass this article if these were fixed but I will not until these are fixed. Thank you for considering these and taking the time in advance to fix them. '''I hereby formally put this article on hold for 5 days to allow these fixes to take place and other fixes that are listed below by other users in the comments section. If these issues are not fixed by July 23, 2011 at 16:30:00 the article will fail it's Good Article nomination.  JoeGazz ''' ♂ 16:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The sentence "The film grossed $166,112,167 in total." is a short, choppy sentence, it needs to be merged or changed to be longer and not so short and choppy.
 * In the section "North Korean Ban" can you please add one more ref, that is a lot of information relying on one reference.
 * I've implemented all suggested changes, thanks for reviewing!  That Ole Cheesy Dude  ( Talk to the hand! ) 17:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is one of the fastest change times I've ever seen, thank you so much for taking the time to fix it and let me just write my concluding comments and I will pass this article per procedure. Thank you!  JoeGazz  ♂ 17:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Concluding Comments
This is amazing, I've never seen someone respond this quickly and do this kind of quality of work before on a Good Article Review. This is amazing to see. I appreciate all the contributing that has been done to this article, with no objections posed during the review period, I am going to close this review as: ✅. Thank you!  JoeGazz  ♂ 17:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments from other Users

 * All other users who are not listed as the reviewer are welcome to leave their comments in this section for the reviewer to consider when making his/her final decision.

No Substance
This film has no substance at all. It is unrealistic. God decides when the world should end; it doesn't happen randomly. This is Kali-yuga: it is now 5000 years since Kali-yuga; 427,000 years more to go before the earth is destroyed (The Vedic ("Hindu") scriptures are authentic). Nothing of the sort shown in the film will happen in 2012. -59.95.27.52 (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)