Talk:Jurassic Park III/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Jurassic Park III/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Empty review? I guess you're still reviewing... sorry I get used to seeing the review page pop up on my watchlist when it already has a review :) Gary King ( talk ) 23:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to confuse you. Yes, I always start the review then go through the article as I make notes. Peanut4 (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * "Jurassic Park III is a 2001 film and it is the third film of the Jurassic Park film series." I don't think you need the "it is", certainly not the "it".


 * Plot
 * "InGen compound", InGen needs explaining or should be mentioned prior to this citation.
 * "When Grant separates" One man can't separate, possibly "When Grant becomes separated from the group, ..."


 * Cast
 * "a world-famous paleontologist who survived the incident on Isla Nublar and has ..." From memory this is in one of the earlier films. I'd add a brief note to say in which film if that is indeed correct.


 * Release
 * "The film earned $181 million domestically" What does domestically refer to? I would say "The film earned $181 million in X and ..." to avoid any confusion.

It shouldn't take too much to solve these fairly minor issues. Peanut4 (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not mean to interfer but why has the lack of references in the plot etc not something that needs to be addressed before it gets promoted to GA. I would of thought more refs were needed in plot etc for it to be able to be passed. I would be greatful to hear a response. Thanks. 02blythed (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is something that does surprise me too, but film plots don't need referencing per WP:FILMPLOT. Peanut4 (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I was just saying it seemed weird that there were no refs but if this is policy then thats ok other than that the article seems GA quality. 02blythed (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay all done. Gary King ( talk ) 01:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Final review.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I'm sure I don't need to bore an experienced editor and reviewer like yourself with a full review and any guidance on where to go next. Suffice to say, it was a pretty easy pass from the word go. Good work. Peanut4 (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)