Talk:Species (film)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 21:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 14, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?:


 * 1) Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
 * 2) NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
 * 3) Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. Thank you.
 * 4) Per Manual of Style/Film, please re-order sects accordingly.
 * 5) Please place Influences and themes above Production.
 * 6) Please expand the lede sect a tad bit more, so it can fully summarize the entire article's contents, per WP:LEAD. I'd suggest about three paragraphs of four sentences each.
 * 7) Please re-order the lede intro sect, so it moves in the same chronological order as the body sects in the article itself, per WP:Manual of Style/Film.
 * 8) Please improve the writing quality a bit -- several long sentences and run on sentences and sentences with too much use of commas, throughout.
 * 9) Species is a 1995 American science fiction horror film directed by Roger Donaldson, written by Dennis Feldman and starring Ben Kingsley, Michael Madsen, Alfred Molina, Forest Whitaker and Marg Helgenberger as a motley crew of scientist and government agents who try to track down an alien seductress played by Natasha Henstridge before she successfully mates with a human male.  -- way way way too long sentence. This can be broken up easily into three (3) sentences. Please look for this, throughout the article.
 * 10) The film was poorly received by critics, but nevertheless turned out to be a box office success, grossing US$113 million ($175 million in 2015 dollars), and spawning one theatrical (Species II), as well as two direct-to-video sequels (Species III and Species: The Awakening).  -- another example of a sentence that could be two shorter sentences.
 * 11) Overall, writing style throughout article can be more concise and succinct.
 * 12) Good use of quotations, only quibble is sect, Writing and development, please trim and or paraphrase the quotes in there.
 * 2. Verifiable?:


 * 1) Checklinks tool shows some redirected sites. Strongly suggest archiving all links to Wayback Machine by Internet Archive using archiveurl and archivedate fields.
 * 2) USA film so please change date format to USA format: Day Month, Year. You already have some in USA style and some in Europe style, so this will increase uniformity and standardization of all citations.
 * 3) I placed one citation needed tag, at end of Sequels sect.
 * 4) Some cites appear to be missing fields. Please use WP:CIT templates and make sure you've provided as much information as possible to ease with verification of reliable sources.
 * 5) Example of problem cite: Navarro, Yvonne; Feldman, Dennis (1 June 1995). Species: A Novel. Bantam. ISBN 978-0-553-57404-3. =  missing page numbers.
 * 6) Fugarino, Virginia S. "Journal of Folklore Research: JFR Review for Tracking the Chupacabra: The Vampire Beast in Fact, Fiction, and Folklore". Retrieved 2013-06-17. = accessdate is filled out wrong, please use Month Day, Year. What journal? What date of publication? What publisher? doi number? volume? issue? page numbers?
 * 7) Please go through cites to make sure that type of info is added.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Article is indeed broad in scope and coverage. Just keep in mind Manual of Style/Film, per above.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Article is indeed presented in a neutral tone with matter-of-fact wording. No issues here.
 * 5. Stable? Upon inspection of article edit history, the article is stable going back at least two months. Talk page shows no issues upon inspection back to 2014. No issues here.
 * 6. Images?: One image used, fair use, very good job on image page at File:Speciesver3.jpg. No issues here.

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review :) Here are my comments:
 * 1.4. I've put Influences... above Production. Is there anything else that needs to be done?
 * 1.6-7. I've edited the lead. Please let me know if you want me to go into more or less detail about any specific section.
 * 1.8. Hopefully I've found most of them. I've read this about a dozen times now, so there are probably things that slipped through but which I won't notice.
 * 1.11. I've done some changes, let me know if it needs a more thorough editing. I would probably do more, but I wanted to wrap this up for today, it's quite late now where I live.
 * 2.3. Resolved :)
 * 2.4-5. Re: page numbers in books, unfortunately I can't help with that; I didn't add those refs and don't have the books. I went through the history, and it seems that User:Igordebraga wrote the bulk of the article, adding both book refs with missing page #s. He has written numerous GAs, so I trusted his coverage of the sources. If this is necessary, I suppose he is the person to ask.
 * 2.6. I'm using cite web here for Fulgarino's review since I don't have any information about the print version of the journal. It is mentioned as being in the 2011 issue here, but that's all the information I could find. Alternatively, judging from this page here, it may well be web-only content.
 * Daß Wölf (talk) 02:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Reevaluation by GA Reviewer
Will post final analysis, below. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Upon revisit, lede intro sect looks much better, good job!
 * 2) Checklinks tool - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Species_%28film%29 shows no problems, excellent here.
 * 3) Copyvio Detector tool - https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Species+%28film%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 - result = "Violation Unlikely 21.3% confidence" = EXCELLENT WORK HERE, THIS IS WHAT WE LIKE TO SEE, NICELY DONE !!!
 * 4) Several of the citations have more field info, good job here.
 * 5) Page numbers would certainly make it easier for other editors in the future. As far as a strict reading of WP:V, verifiability is still met. This would most likely not pass muster at WP:FAC, but I'm going to allow it for WP:GA. Going forward in the Quality improvement process, please try to get the page numbers for the books cited.
 * 6) Overall quotation use looks a bit better.
 * Have you taken some time to read over the instructions in my suggestion number 3, above, that is only optional and just something to consider as a suggested way to pay it forward ? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Max Havoc: Curse of the Dragon/GA1 :) Daß Wölf (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, just a suggestion to read over the instructions and consider it as an option only is all I ask. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Passed as GA
Passed as GA. My thanks to GA Nominator for being so polite and responsive to GA Reviewer recommendations, above. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)