Talk:Spider-Man 3/GA1

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

GA Sweeps: On hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.


 * 1) The images need alternate text per WP:ALT. I already did the movie poster (feel free to reword, it was my first attempt).
 * 2) The citation tag in the cast section needs to be addressed. I did a quick Google search and couldn't find anything, but if the main contributors are more aware on the incident, maybe a source can be found.
 * 3) "The FX channel signed a five-year deal for the television rights to Spider-Man 3, which they plan to start airing at the beginning of 2009. The price will be based on the film's box office performance, with an option for three opportunities for Sony to sell the rights to one or more other broadcast networks." Can this be updated?
 * 4) There are multiple dead links/redirects that need to be fixed. The Internet Archive can help.

This article covers the topic well. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Did alts, removed the uncited phrase, replaced refs, couldn't find anything else on FX. See if it's enough. igordebraga ≠ 18:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Kept
Good work addressing the issues. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for the online sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)