Talk:Tron: Legacy/GA2

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

Reviewer: Ankitbhatt (talk · contribs) 17:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)



Minor points
I'm not going to do a very in-depth analysis of the article yet. However, a single look at the article throws up a few points.


 * Lead requires expansion.


 * Too many one or two-line sentences classified as separate sub-sections. I suggest merging them with other paragraphs.✅


 * Even in other sub-sections, there is awkward paragraph splitting. I suggest the main contributors to either collect more information and expand small paragraphs, or do some re-arranging and tweaks and collapse certain section to a smaller number of bigger paragraphs.


 * References should be checked for internal consistency. Additionally, it would be preferable if all reference titles use sentence case.


 * Try to get rid of the red links. It disrupts reading flow. Either create the necessary articles or simply remove the part.✅

More to come. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment I quick-failed the previous nom, back in January... and the article's been practically the same since then (the only improvement was shortening the plot and a short section on Interface design, which doesn't compensate the lack of a Visual effects section). Between Ankit's complaints, my complaints, and dead links, things don't look promising. igordebraga ≠ 20:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I renominated to see another party's view and give a longer chance to clean the page up, rather than it being failed and it being re-submitted for another nom, which would be time consuming. RAP (talk) 23:16 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I just saw the first GA review of Tron: Legacy, and I was completely taken aback to see that there had not been an ounce of effort towards rectifying some of the problems mentioned. And believe me, they were major problems. i skimmed through the article once more and found some more problems (some of which will overlap with Igordebraga;


 * Visual effects section is absent. What? Are we actually talking about Tron: Legacy?✅


 * Critical reception states that the film received mixed reviews, though at first sight I can't see even an average review listed, let alone a negative one. I will be a bit hard on this part since I myself disliked the film. That's akin to POV, so I suggest changes. You can remove less-notable reviews as well.✅

Whenever I review anything, my first priority is to see that the article looks good; the article should be pleasant to read, informative, big and well-written (grammatically, prose-wise etc.) Tron: Legacy fails even that basic criteria. In fact, I don't think Tron: Legacy even passes the B-class criteria, let alone GA (which has more stringent standards). I am willing to put this on hold, and I'll be a bit lenient: within the stipulated one-week gap, I hope to see at least 60% of the concerns to be cleared up. The visual effects section is a must. I may sound a bit harsh, but I see a lot of laziness mainly because there has been no attempt to improve the article after the first GAR. I hope the second time won't be so poor. Cheers. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article will need a major overhaul. I am currently working on expanding it, but I'm not sure if it will pass this time around.—DAP388 (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You still have six days' time to complete the 60% mark; I hope that is adequate, as I'm technically not supposed to do this :P. Let's just hope that Tron: Legacy won't need a third GAN; its long and pointless, and adds up to the backlog. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 04:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have changed the status of this review to "on hold" as that seems to be the intention. Glimmer721 talk  02:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, one week's time is up. I can see some good progress in the article, but a number of issues still remain.


 * Lead is still not big enough. It should adequately summarize the entire article, which the lead does not.


 * Why is that big white space present in the Themes section? Please get rid of it.✅


 * Talking about the Themes section, it should be a sub-section of Production, NOT a separate section in itself.✅
 * -Themes are an entirely different thing to production, so it does need it's own section.


 * Tiny sub-sections still exist - Interface design, Sound effects, Graphic novel, Electronics and toys. Either expand or merge with other sections.✅


 * References need internal consistency in formatting.


 * Dead references need to be replaced. To avoid future problems, start archiving references.✅


 * It should be just "Sequel" sub-section, not "Movie sequel".✅


 * Critical reception section is big but disordered. Apply this rule : Positive reviews in one paragraph (two if large in number), mixed reviews in another paragraph, and negative reviews in last paragraph (or two). Immediately after the RT/Metacritic bits we get a D+ review, which is weird to say the least.


 * In the box office section, avoid using words like "impressive" - "In China, it had an impressive opening of $10,624,412 but it quickly faded out for a final gross of $18,889,822." does not sound encyclopedic. Instead, write this - "In China, the film debuted to $10,624,412, which was described as "impressive". However, the film failed to sustain momentum, and ended its theatrical run with $18,889,822."


 * In fact, there are quite a lot of problems with the box office section. Try to be less emotional. "It failed to top the box office on its overseas opening, since it earned only $20.3 million", "It topped the box office with $17,509,781 on its first day and $44,026,211 throughout the weekend, far ahead of the other two new releases". Such sentences sound bad - "only", "far ahead", they give a very amateur feel to the prose. Rectify it, in a similar way as stated above.


 * Film names in all places should be italicized. "Bridges called the experience surreal and said it was "Just like the first Tron, but for real!" - Tron is not italicized. Similarly for all other places, for any other film.✅

There may be lots more, so I'll keep checking. Cheers. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that this has gone long enough. Some of the aspects have been ticked Done despite the fact that they are clearly not done. The article needs pruning of repetitions, ordering of the Reception section, work on referencing and much much more than the occasional revert. I am now further intensified in my insistence on a peer review before the article comes to GAN. In compliance with this, I am failing this GAN until more work can be done on this. I encourage re-nomination only when a thorough peer review is carried out, which eliminates a lot of the problems plaguing this article. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry you didn't see the massive improvements made, but your impatience has wasted another GA nom. alot of your suggestions are small things. The Themes do need a seperate section as themes aren't part of the development or production. I will have a peer review conducted and when i re-nom, hopefully a different editor reviews it. RAP (talk) 14:08 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? If you look up, I have already said that a lot of good work has been done. If this is impatience, then I am sorry but it is more likely you who are impatient; GAs are not the easiest things to happen on Wikipedia. And let me correct you in this regard: the points I wrote above were the superficial problems. I hadn't even started the bits about grammar, cohesion, reading flow, detailed referencing, placement of content etc. which is the actual part of the GA. Go ahead, ask another reviewer to review the article next time, I have absolutely no problem with that and I don't review the same article twice anyway. If you wish to assume bad faith and blame your inability to improve the article on me, well, I can't say anything. Good day. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? My point was you failed it while the improvements were still being made. And since that happened, another GA nom will have to be comissioned, which shouldn't have been necessary. I've spent the past few days changing the references (a very minor and picky thing). RAP (talk) 12:40 8 May 2012 (UTC)