Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Review begun
I've begun reviewing it, and it is definitely worthy of a comprehensive review. Should be finished in a day or two.Ktlynch (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Look forward to addressing any issues you may have with it. DrNegative (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say we definitely need to hurry up and take care of the current dead links in this article, as a start. It is in pretty good shape, except for needing a few tweaks and the recent edit-warring. Flyer22 (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that all of the dead links were already taken care of, except for one. I addressed the remaining one in the Dead links section of the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I knocked out 4 of them yesterday but when I got to that one, the door slammed. I searched every possible search engine for a possible source or alternate source. I even checked every instance of it on the wayback-machine archives with no luck. It is in link heaven. DrNegative (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL. What about what I stated about it in the Dead links section? Will you weigh in on that? Flyer22 (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a good article, likely to be informative to most readers.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):  The article is well, though not brilliantly written. The lead, plot and development sections are particularly strong. There are many places with slightly fluffy expression, or wordiness. [|Here] is an excellent edit which trimmed the plot summary. The awards and honours section is quite poorly written, and could benefit well from a tightening up the prose - highlighting the importance of the most notable awards, and a quick mention of the data, body, citation etc.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It's well sourced and referenced inline, though not all are of the highest quality, many are internet magazines, short news articles etc. The problem with dead links on a recently created article demonstrates that these are not hugely reliable.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * For such a large topic, the article achieves a good balance between the different aspects. The section "preformance analysis" may be too long: it seems to not have a clear purpose and largely devoted to pointing out various estimates observers made ex-ante. It is a really a commercial analysis attemptingt to explain the popularity of the film, a goal which could be achieved quicker.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * There are no clear biases, though vigiliance must be paid here. This is especially true when every minority group, communist or woman, chips in with analysis from their own perspective. That paragraph could also e removed from the critical reception, which deals with the film as a work of art.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * There is no on going edit war, but still heavy editing, as the topic is still relatively current, and new information becomes avaliable reguarly. This is very likely to improve the article, there has been widespread use of consensus building during the writing, and the article is currently semi-protected.
 * 1) 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):
 * For a long article, some more images, text boxes or drop quotations might break up the text nicely. Though for a commercial film it is difficult to secure freely licensed content. The images that are here are either freely licensed or contain convinving fair use rationales.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article's size may become a problem if too many more piecemeal edits are made, long analysis of themes, reaction, detail on the production techniques etc might warrant splitting a section into a new article. Remember to continously improve the sources used, and do everything in a collaborative fashion. Congrualations to the many editors who have helped here, and good luck improving the article.Ktlynch (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article's size may become a problem if too many more piecemeal edits are made, long analysis of themes, reaction, detail on the production techniques etc might warrant splitting a section into a new article. Remember to continously improve the sources used, and do everything in a collaborative fashion. Congrualations to the many editors who have helped here, and good luck improving the article.Ktlynch (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments
Thanks for the reviewing this article, and for promoting it. I did not think it would be reviewed/promoted this soon, considering the long wait we were likely to be subjected to. As for the Performance analysis section, I feel that it does have a clear purpose; this film's performance at the box office is far beyond the typical film box office performance, and many people have wondered just how it has been able to do what it has done performance-wise, including box office analysts. They have wondered so much that they have thoroughly weighed in on it; there are various other thoughts from them about this film's success, but I have not added those thoughts, because the section is long enough and already covers everything about its box office performance well. I am not seeing how it is "largely devoted to pointing out various estimates observers made ex-ante." I explained its existence earlier: "...I created it because the extent of this film's box office success has baffled most people. It seemed important to address how people thought this film would flop (like had been thought of Titanic), the box office predictions by box office analysts who were sure it would not flop, Cameron's take on all that, the box office analysts being stunned by just how successful this film has been at the box office, and the explanations they have given for its monstrous run. Not only is it notable, but I knew that people would particularly want to read all that."

People have often wondered what is behind this film's baffling success, even on this talk page, and heated debates about it continue on the Internet. The Performance analysis section gives them their answer. If you would rather it be renamed to Commercial analysis, as it seems you suggest, I am not too opposed to that title. But "Performance" seems clearer to me and covers more than just the concept of "commercial" success. But, really, how is either title too differently from the other? Is it because you feel that "commercial" can possibly limit some of the detail, and explain the popularity of the film quicker under that title? I have looked to see what can be cut from that section, more than once, before this GA review began, and everything there seems relevant to mention. But I will keep looking at it, and seeing if there is perhaps a paragraph that can be cut out or at least cut down. But that section is not much bigger than the Critical reception section. The box office analysts opinions about this film have been just as important as the critics' opinions about it.

You are spot on about this article's size, and I addressed that on this talk page some time before you posted your review. We will also do our best to take care of your other concerns.

Thank you again. Flyer22 (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)