Talk:Juno (film)/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Juno (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


 * Expand the third paragraph of the lead. The lead in general needs more content about the plot, production, and reception.
 * "# ^ Palmer, Tamara (January 17, 2008). Big-screen chemistry. Retrieved on April 16, 2008." is missing a publisher

Gary King ( talk ) 21:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have slightly expanded it, but I am a little hesitant to do it further and reveal the ending of the film in the lead. Any thoughts? Chimeric Glider (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The publisher issue is fixed, it was like an odd misplacement of template, which I assume it was unintentional. Chimeric Glider (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks better now.


 * "Initially, Reitman had conceived of Juno being a fan of glam rock, but rejected it as too inauthentic." – Short paragraph. Also, where is its reference?

Gary King ( talk ) 01:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reference was found (though google :-) ) and the passage was expanded a little bit. Chimeric Glider (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "# ^ a b Cody, Diablo (October 10, 2007). Spiritual Cousins. The Pussy Ranch. Retrieved on April 16, 2008." is a dead reference. Gary King ( talk ) 01:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It was the site of the screenwriter's personal writings, and it is unfortunate that she has closed down the site. I am afraid that this kind of information wouldn't be reproduced on other sites. To delete all information that used the dead citation would be unwise. What should I do in this situation? Chimeric Glider (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Some options are to find another site that mirrored the information on that one; another would be to remove the information that it sources. The Internet Archive unfortunately does not have any backups of the page in question. Gary King ( talk ) 01:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what to do now since I have not watched the whole film, and due to that I am not sure about the relevancy and importance of the information extracted from the defunct site. I have asked two users, who have actively edited/commented the article, for help. Chimeric Glider (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not having seen the entire film is, I would say, a disadvantage to you as the article's primary editor :) Nevertheless, I've seen it, and I don't think the information is too important – especially if finding a reference will be difficult. The statement draws comparisons with another film that readers of this article will be assumed to not be familiar with. Gary <b style="color:#02b;"><i style="font-size:large;">K</i>ing</b> ( talk ) 04:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Though the two editors have yet responded, I have removed the passage on the article. In the future if someone else finds the reference he/she can add it back. I am thinking of going to blockbuster just for this sometime. :) Chimeric Glider (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was caught up in other things and meant to look this morning. However, it has passed, slightly against expectations!  I'll still see if I can find the info elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The article now meets the GA criteria and has therefore been passed. Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 03:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good job, everyone!--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)