Talk:Alien: Covenant/GA1

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

Reviewer: Arcahaeoindris (talk · contribs) 10:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I can review this. Please give some time to look through it; I will ping you when I am finished.


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Spot check time:
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * In "Production design" and other sections, there is probably no need to quote the release date and title of the articles - just go straight into the prose.
 * ..."article for Cinemablend from May 2017 titled "Mythbusters' Adam Savage Toured The Set Of Alien: Covenant, And It's Wonderful""
 * "...The Hollywood Reporter on May 18, 2017, titled "'Alien: Covenant': How the Xenomorph Continues to Horrify Audiences Decades Later..."
 * "writing for Vulture magazine in an article titled "What Other Blockbuster Villains Can Learn From David in Alien: Covenant"..."
 * The "post-production" section is almost entirely made up of a single, long quote from a single source. Are there any other sources that could supplement this, and could the quote be streamlined to its most important point(s)? It's almost worth using a quote box for a quote this long.
 * I still think this quote is far too long. Can't this quote be shortened, and its key points summarised in Wikivoice? It will read much better.
 * In the opening of "Plot", it might be good to indicate where this exchange takes place: "Business magnate Peter Weyland speaks..." You could potentially add a footnote note explaining it takes place after the events of a previous film.
 * Thanks for addressing but I also actually meant where geographically - do they meet on a certain spaceship, on a certain planet?
 * This sentence is slightly awkward, possibly the double use of the word "planet": "Despite the protests of Daniels, Branson's widow, that this new "perfect" planet is too good to be true, the new captain, Christopher Oram, decides they will investigate the new planet."
 * Propose to change: "Despite the protests of Daniels, Branson's widow, that this new "perfect" planet is too good to be true, the new captain, Christopher Oram, decides they will investigate."
 * As per WP:LEAD, please ensure the lead summarises the body. This statement needs to also be in the body (likely in "Post-production") with a reference if it is going in the lead: "Scott said the first cut of the film was two hours and 23 minutes long, which was eventually edited down to the 2 hours and 3 minutes of the released version."
 * The "Analysis" section appears to be a bit superfluous - it covers two sources praising the film within the franchise, and one (the Vox article) that comments on the film's themes. As per MOS:MOVIE, usually a "Themes" section would cover analysis, which this does not appear to be. Propose to merge this section with "Critical reception" and summarise the result, unless there was enough to justify a whole section on "Themes".
 * More background is needed in "Development"; i.e. outline that this follows previous releases in the Alien series, and then go into: "In 2012, prior to the release of prior instalment Prometheus". Treat this section as if the reader has never seen the franchise before. You could look at the start of the same section in the Prometheus article for an example.
 * Please add punctuation/commas to this sentence as it is very long and reads awkwardly: "In an article for Cinemablend, Connor Schwerdfeger included a five-minute video..."
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * What makes these sources reliable:
 * Ref 128: a YouTube video that appears to be removed, and is not possible to verify with the archive link either. Does not specify which channel this is from. Not automatically failed, but another source would be preferable.
 * Ref 133: forum.blu-ray.com: this is a forum post and not generally considered a reliable source.
 * Who is "Savage" in "In an article for Cinemablend, Connor Schwerdfeger included a five-minute video of Savage's discussion.."
 * In Cast: No citation for Guy Pearce or Logan Marshall Green's roles, and no source for Noomi Rapace not being in the final cut. It's also not clear how an archived Youtube link to the prequel film shows that Nooni was in the prequal - she is not listed as being in the clip in the video description. Is there a better source for this?
 * This note in "Adaptations" is unsourced: "The novel's first edition and audiobook mistakenly refer to Jacob Branson as Jacob Brandon throughout."
 * R20: loreleiking.com/ this is a primary source blog, and does not directly support the statements this person read for Audible, or was a friend of Helen Horton. Is there a better source that could be used, or if not could this sentence be changed to only support the statements directly in the source?
 * R86: WP:IMDB is not a reliable source.
 * The last sentence of "adaptations" is unsourced.
 * In lead, the statement "not including marketing costs" needs to also be in the body with a reference.
 * R9: "She is the third in command after Branson and Oram.." could you include a link to the source?
 * Thanks for adding a link and verified except for "third in command".
 * R28: "Prometheus co-writer Damon Lindelof cast doubt on his own participation..." this link is broken and directs to a 404.
 * Fixed and verified.
 * R34: "With Alien: Covenant, I just really wanted to write something..." Verified.
 * R42: "In late August 2015, Scott confirmed that he had started scouting locations for the film" - 404ed.
 * Now verified.
 * R49: "In 2016, Ridley Scott stated that Noomi Rapace would not reprise her role of Elizabeth Shaw" - it says "it was long reported she would not be back to reprise her role", not that Scott stated this - needs slight tweak.
 * Fixed.
 * R65: "Some footage was also filmed at Leavesden Studios in England" - verified.
 * R80: "A version of "Nature Boy" sung by Norwegian singer and songwriter Aurora was used..." this is a YouTube mirror - a better source would be ideal.
 * Fixed, thanks.
 * R94: "The film was released in Japan on September 15, 2017" - verified.
 * R103: "The trailer is a first-person experience in which the viewer plays the role of a neomorph" - verified.
 * R114/115: "It went on to open to $36.2 million, down 34% from Prometheus's debut, but still finishing first at the box office, as the third-highest debut of the series when not counting for inflation." Verified part of this but could not verify "finishing first at the box office" or the "third-highest debut".
 * Thanks for amending.
 * R126: "Collider's review of the film stated that Scott..." verified.
 * R148: "Scott responded to a question about Sigourney Weaver reprising her role..." verified.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Can the "accolades" section be expanded? A tabulation of key awards, or an excerpt from the linked article, would be good as this is typical for film articles.
 * Are awards from the Golden Trailer Awards generally considered notable? I am not sure, just asking.
 * I think the "Sequel" section is pretty long and detailed, and there is quite a lot of speculation here that appers to be from several years ago - is there a way this section could be more concise? It is also quite unclear as to whether this content describes a single sequel that was in development or several. Some of this content could potentially be better placed in Alien (franchise), or it could just do with some copyediting for greater focus and clarity.
 * More broadly, I think the "Production design" section could provide a more encyclopaedic summary of key elements of the production design. For instance, this sentence: "...regarding the involvement of the San Diego Zoo and its representative Rick Schwartz as a consultant for the design of the realistic effects of the creatures and Xenomorphs appearing throughout the film". What "realistic effects"?What "key elements"? No need to go into immense detail but good to actually outline the content of the sources in an enclyclopedic way.
 * The article is still a little on the long side, with "Production" being by far the longest section. Not essential for passing, but if there is anything that could be summarised or made more concise (particularly in "Production" and "Development") will suggest this.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * A few points:
 * "likely because of censorship required by the Chinese State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television due to the monstrous violence depicted in the film".... "likely" is not WP:POV - this needs to be attributed to a source (e.g. according to X, this was likely because of censorship). Also "monstrous violence" is worded awkwardly and is a non-neutral description - could this be changed to just "violence"?
 * Propose to change link from "Mainland China" to "China"
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Seems to be fairly stable from a quick review.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Passes. Do you think that any free images of the filming locations could be included in "filming"?
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Some structural and formatting suggestions:
 * Could the sections "Filming countries" and "filming" be combined?
 * Could "Novelization" and "Virtual reality experience" be under the same section (e.g. something like "Home media and adaptation"). Does not make much sense to me that "Novelization" goes under "Release"?
 * Propose "Music" be a separate main heading, rather than going under "production".
 * Please fix all bare URLs in the references, I can spot a few (R71, R134) but please convert these into properly formatted references with source details.
 * ...was six minutes shorter than the version released elsewhere due to censorship...
 * Propose to link to film censorship in China
 * Propose to change link text from "Chinese censorship" to just "censorship" as clear that this is what is refers to.
 * Propose to add relevant sub-headings to "Home media and adaptations" (e.g. virtual reality, novelisations, etc.) and also propose to link to novelization upon first instance.
 * Please move the Blu-ray release sentence to the "release" section (it is currently under "novelization") and rename this section to "Adaptations"
 * Propose to link to the David and Walter character pages in the image of Fassbender in "Reception".
 * In "Sequel", propose to change: "Michael Reyes, writing for Cinema Blend in July, quoted Scott as saying, in response to a question about Sigourney Weaver reprising her role as Ellen Ripley in the prequels... "
 * "Scott responded to a question about Sigourney Weaver reprising her role as Ellen Ripley in the prequels... "

I have addressed the above issues. Lankyant (talk) 04:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Arcahaeoindris I have addressed the new above issues I think. Golden Trailers is used in Prometheus article so thought it would be appropriate here. Let me know if you need more expansion and if the changes are okay by you. Thanks for doing this mate! Lankyant (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries! Have crossed out most of the comments and added a few more points above. Once these are resolved, I'll do a quick spot check to verify bits of the article with sources. Article is otherwise looking good! Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Arcahaeoindris I have addressed the points, still need to cut down the Production section and rework that long ass quote but the other points have been actioned. Might struggle for time this weekend but I'll see what I can do :) Lankyant (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries - just let me know when you are done :) Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Arcahaeoindris Hey mate, sorry for the wait, I think I am now done with the proposed edits. Please check the post production, I cut out most of the quote and made it more readable. Do you still want some cuts made elsewhere? Lankyant (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your patience while I responded. Thanks for your work resolving these. As a final check, I have done a quick verification spot check of references above and unfortunately are a few issues with the references (many of them have now 404ed). Could you please rectify these? Arcahaeoindris (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Arcahaeoindris Hey mate! So I've gone through and archived all the sources and changed the 404 error ones to the archive pages so should be all good on that front I think :) Lankyant (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice work! Note that as per comments above, References 28 and 42 still direct to a 404 so need archiving, and ideally there would be better sources for R9 and R80, and also please tweak the statement next to R49. Thanks! Arcahaeoindris (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Arcahaeoindris Hey, apologies I didn't see the list above, you must have thought I was ignoring you! I've addressed everything, added the link to IGN interview and added a few refs to clarify and verify the wording. The 404s have been corrected too, I missed a few on my archive frenzy, what I get for doing it after a long day at work. Lankyant (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey no worries at all, I appreciate that all Wikipedia work is done by hobbyists in spare time! The article is looking great, thanks for your work amending those issues above. The last thing I can see is this sentence is unsourced: "Dante Harper later wrote a new script, but an extensive rewrite was performed by screenwriter John Logan. Logan had previously worked with Scott on Gladiator." Please reference or remove this and otherwise think this article is good to go. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't that covered by R34? Or should I just reference it again and have it twice? Lankyant (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, it is! Verified. Yes, you should just add inline so that it is clear that the statement in referenced. In any case this passes, nice work! Arcahaeoindris (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)