Talk:G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra/GA1

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

Reviewer: Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

This article has a few issues with the reception section and citations mostly before I pass it.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "Lorenzo di Bonaventura wanted to cast Mark Wahlberg in the role when the script was not about the origin story,[4] while the studio met with Sam Worthington when it was rewritten by Beattie in its final incarnation.[5]". This comment could use some re-phrasing.
 * Done.
 * Per WP:SLASH I'm not sure we can have those slashes inbetween the characters. Is there another way to organize this?
 * Reworked it to "Codename" (name).
 * "Marlon Wayans as Wallace Weems / Ripcord: He has a crush on Scarlett, which she is aware of but, has no interest in him to begin with". Crush might be considered slang, but outside that, we should know what this character does, just like how we know that Hawk is the Team Leader and that Duke is The lead soldier. The lines about him flying aircraft do not seem notable and the Ace note seems speculative. Per WP:FILMCAST, this section should avoid further plot points about characters and be more about their casting.
 * Removed.
 * The note about Leo Howard as a 10-year-old Snake Eyes should be part of the same line as it doesn't need it's own separate bullet. Consider putting that one after the last comment on Snake Eyes. The same goes for the Storm Shadow character.
 * Done.
 * The text "Director Stephen Sommers said 'this is not a George Bush movie — it's an Obama world. Right from the writing stage we said to ourselves, this can't be about beefy guys on steroids who all met each other in the Vietnam War, but an elite organization that's made up of the best of the best from around the world.'" should have "'s for the Sommers quote, not apostrophes.
 * Done.
 * The citation for the Sommers quote should also relate to the page of the article as at first, I wasn't sure it was actually being cited properly. Update that URL!
 * I never seen such multi-page article complaints before, but separated the ref.
 * I never seen such multi-page article complaints before, but separated the ref.


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * "Another cameo is by Brendan Fraser as Sgt. Stone, who is well known for his character from The Mummy series which was also directed by Stephen Sommers.". This needs a citation. The Mummy series should be in italics and wiki-linked as well.
 * Since it was redundant, removed.
 * "Zikova Street in Prague was used for the Paris sequence." We have Prague, but where is the citation about Zikova street?
 * Removed the street's name, it's not much relevant.
 * "A soundtrack album of the score is available from Varèse Sarabande Records on August 4, 2009." Needs a cite.
 * Done.
 * "Neil Faerber of Toronto-Fame gave the Blu-ray a 4/5 praising the features included such as a digital copy." This needs a cite and seems out of place on it's location. Reception of the DVD should be located in an area about the DVD release.
 * Removed.
 * UK Release date could use a cite.
 * UK Release date could use a cite.


 * Why? Nevermind, just removed it.
 * Cite 21 needs a better cite, examine Template:Cite book.
 * Done.


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Stating in the opening that "The film received mixed critical reviews," and later "The film has received mixed to negative reviews." seems contradictory. A statement like "The film received generally unfavorable reviews" seems more apt.
 * Done.
 * This section focuses a bit too much on the positive reviews, especially with the mostly low reception of the film. Can the focus on why the film was negatively received be more expanded upon? I don't think we need as many positive ones.
 * It now has 7 (plus that "sinking ice" note) negative vs. 6 positive reviews.
 * This section focuses a bit too much on the positive reviews, especially with the mostly low reception of the film. Can the focus on why the film was negatively received be more expanded upon? I don't think we need as many positive ones.
 * It now has 7 (plus that "sinking ice" note) negative vs. 6 positive reviews.


 * 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):
 * The film poster image's source does not link to the poster displayed. This will have to be fixed.
 * Done.
 * The film poster image's source does not link to the poster displayed. This will have to be fixed.
 * Done.


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article is generally very good. It needs re-editing of it's reception section and needs to clean out some excess information from the cast. I'd also like the citations filled out where requested. Good luck with the article! I'll have it on hold for a week. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Anything else? igordebraga ≠ 00:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow! Great and quick job. On looking through again, the only thing I can note that I'm not sure about is the intro where it says it's based on the toy franchise. The production section suggests the script is more based on the comics. Should the lead say it's based on the comics or the toy line? Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rewrote to say it's based on the toy line, with focus on the comic. What do you think? igordebraga ≠ 22:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if it's perfect. But it will do for now. I'm passing the article. Great job! Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)