Talk:Bionicle 2: Legends of Metru Nui/GA4

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

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The article meets the manual of style guidelines and wikiproject films guidelines. I can't see any major issues, other than a few minor things that needed to be fixed, which I've already taken care of.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Most of the citations seem to be valid and reliable, although some of them appear to be a bit sketchy at first glance. There's a few dead links in the citations, including http://www.scifilm.org/reviews/bioniclemetru.html and http://www.variety.com/ac2005_article/VR1117915590?nav=news, so it is impossible to verify the validity of those. Also, the budget listed in the infobox of $5 million does not have a citation, so that cannot be verified. I wouldn't necessarily expect the citation to appear in the infobox, but I would actually expect that to partially summarize info in the article, so I would think a mention of the budget should be mentioned in the production section. As an additional note, it should be mentioned in this review for future reference that the plot summary does not need an explicit citation, per Wikiproject Films style guide -- "Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary." I just thought it would be important to note that here since the previous GA delisting from last May cited lack of citations as one of the reasons for delisting.
 * Removed the dead links; but if I can't find new sources, should I remove the info as well?-- Twilight  Helryx  03:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Based on the Wikiproject Films Style Guide, the article appears mostly complete. What is missing is some discussion on themes, or "unifying or dominant ideas and motifs in a film's elements (such as plot, dialogue, photography, and sound) conveying a position or message about life, society, and human nature."
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * I believe that the article is presented in a neutral tone.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * The article is stable and there is no evidence of edit-warring or WP:3RR violations.
 * 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):
 * There's only one image in the article. While not a free image, it is an acceptable use for this type of an article.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall, I think that this article come very close to meeting the six good article criteria, and it can be listed pending the changes mentioned above. I will leave this review on hold until 3/2/2010, so that the issues can be addressed. Cheers! WTF? (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. I will get to work on this as soon as I can. My schedule is a little cramped right now so I hope you can bear with me for being a bit slow. Thanks again!-- Twilight  Helryx  03:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Deadlinks are fixed, but is that last issue going to be fixed? Ideally I would want to either pass or fail this article today or very soon. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 16:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This article has been on hold for over a month, the article hasn't even been edited in two weeks. I fail to see how improvements are being made. There are plenty more articles that need reviewing. RAIN the ONE  (Talk) 02:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Taking over review
Right this has been going on for four months. Nominators should have articles ready for review when then nominate them. The WP:Good article criteria are straightforward enough that self assessment before nomination can be undertaken. . I have come here following this note from Wizardman.

It appears that the nominator has lost interest so I am going to make a determination now.

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Prose is mostly sufficient to meet the GA criteria "reasonably well written", although there is still room for improvement. Still some badly written sentences, however.
 * The film has many scenes taking stock footage from itself. What does this mean?
 * The film was received with mixed reviews, with some noting the filling in of plot holes from the last movie.  Was that the only point mentioned in the reviews?
 * Plot section overly long and detailed for a 75 minute animation.
 * Most of the animation was created in Taiwan by a company called CGCG. Where was the rest created, what was the role of the studio that won the awards?
 * The film was first screened on October 6, 2004, at the El Capitan Theatre in Hollywood, California.. The lead says it was direct to DVD (also that fact{?) is not mentioned in the article body).
 *  Cartoon Network aired the movie for the first time less than two months after its release on December 18, 2004, at 7 p.m. Eastern Time. That is more than two months.
 * Reception section has more detail on the release history than the reviews. No sales figures or DVD chart figures
 * Production section has no mention of the budget, although that is in the infobox.
 * Two awards were won by the studio that created Bionicle 2 at the 27th Annual Telly Awards. Doesn't the studio (ddPR) deserve a name check? Surely their role should be mentioned in the production section?
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The article is mostly well referenced but some criticism is not attributed. I have tagged those instances.
 * I have fixed some dead links and tagged two for which I could not find an archive version
 * ref # 11 failed verification, as did ref #15
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * See comments abiove about lack of detail in production section
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article still does not meet the GA criteria, so I shall not be listing it. If you disagree with this decision, please take it to WP:GAR. Otherwise, I suggest that you ask for a WP:Peer review to get further input, and when you sure that it fully meets the GA criteria, renominate it at WP:GAN. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article still does not meet the GA criteria, so I shall not be listing it. If you disagree with this decision, please take it to WP:GAR. Otherwise, I suggest that you ask for a WP:Peer review to get further input, and when you sure that it fully meets the GA criteria, renominate it at WP:GAN. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article still does not meet the GA criteria, so I shall not be listing it. If you disagree with this decision, please take it to WP:GAR. Otherwise, I suggest that you ask for a WP:Peer review to get further input, and when you sure that it fully meets the GA criteria, renominate it at WP:GAN. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)