Talk:Interstellar (film)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 07:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I will review this article. Thank you. — Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 07:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * The lead, which is usually supposed to touch on all sections, does not have anything from scientific accuracy section.
 * "His brother, director Christopher Nolan, had" — You've already mentioned him being a director in the development section.
 * Add the year for Miss Julie, Transcendence, Inception, The Dark Knight Rises, Man of Steel.
 * "was scheduled to last for four months" — Scrap "for".
 * "and involved hundreds of extras as well as some 130 crew members, most of them local" — Rephrase this as "and involved hundreds of extras in addition to 130 crew members, most of whom were local"
 * "mock spaceships" — Spaceships were used to represent the planets? Strange. Are you sure this is right?
 * "situation on Earth portrayed in early scenes" — "situation on Earth portrayed in the early scenes".
 * Wikilink "terabytes".
 * "asymmetrical, so the finished black hole ignored it.[59] Nolan found the finished effect was understandable, provided he maintained consistent camera perspectives: "What we found was as long as we didn't change the point of view too much, the camera position, we could get something very understandable"" — Looks a bit vague. Do clarify this.
 * "The portrayal of what a wormhole would look like is considered scientifically correct" — According to whom?
 * "Correct depiction of the Penrose process was also praised" — Who praised it? Critics? Do clarify this.
 * nb 1 is unosurced.
 * Add the year for Furious 7, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, Avatar, Gravity, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, Pacific Rim, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1, Frozen, Shrek 2, The Day After Tomorrow, Monsters University, World War Z, Insomnia and Dumb and Dumber To.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

The sources are good too. The article could do with a little more copyediting but looks good enough for GA criteria,. — Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 08:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)