Talk:Unbreakable (film)/GA1

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

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. On the whole the article is very good. I have only a few comments to make at this point, although I may add some more. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 01:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * The lead is the weakest part of the article, and could be more clearly worded. For example:
 * "After conceiving Unbreakable to be a definitive origin story" - perhaps this could be better worded
 * Fixed. Wildroot (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dunn <> David - it is confusing that you sometimes call by his first name, then his last name.
 * some odd wording in the article:
 * Fixed. Wildroot (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Shyamalan has heavily considered developing a sequel."
 * Fixed. Wildroot (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Cult filmmaker and comic book writer Kevin Smith felt Unbreakable was briefly similar to a comic book titled The Mage."
 * Fixed. Wildroot (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 01:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "(Signs, The Village, etc)" - not good to use abbreviations, such as etc.
 * "In September 2008" - do you mean - as of September 2008?
 * Fixed. Wildroot (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I added the isbn for The Making of Unbreakable, 2001 but page numbers are needed for each of the six references
 * Ugh, that wasn't a book. It was a DVD documentary. I probably should have cited it better. My bad. Wildroot (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As the 70.208.161.72 has said below, the statement "Shyamalan wrote Unbreakable as the first installment of a trilogy" is not supported by the source, nor are the subsequent statements. I have changed the material to match the source you have given.
 * I am placing the article on hold while we fix these few issues. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 01:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This article needs other cleanup (I have done some but it probably needs more):
 * There was a good deal of fan pro-film POV inserted into this article re: Unbreakable being a financial success. 95 mill domestic is way short of a profit for a 75 mill film. The budget + advertising probably means break even was around 200 mill (100 mill cost, 200 mill profit - 100 mill going to theater owners) I have removed such statements so we can at least have a neutral POV WP:NPOV
 * What about foreign profit and the successful DVD sales? I don't claim to be an expert on this type of box-office-to-profit-ratio stuff, but I just wanna know what you think about the additional moola. =) Wildroot (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Newspaper opinion pieces seem to be used for statements of fact re: "'Unbreakable'' drew universal praise from comic book writers/artists and aficionados" WP:RELIABLE
 * The reference came from Entertainment Weekly with an interview from M. Night Shyamalan. There were also a group of highly-celebrated comic book veterans interviewed on the DVD "making-of" feature (Will Eisner, Alex Ross, etc.) Wildroot (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No ref as to this film having a "cult status"
 * Removed. That was on here before I began to work on the article, so it probably goes under WP:OR. Fixed. Wildroot (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

70.208.161.72 (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC) — 70.208.161.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Reference does not support statement "Shyamalan wrote Unbreakable as the first installment of a trilogy", in fact it says the opposite and the whole section seems to rely on Synthesis. Whole section may have no merit. (partial cleanup)
 * Sorry about that, I must have read Shy's quote wrong. But it looks like you fixed it. Awesome! Wildroot (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

Congradulations! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 16:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable  c (OR): No OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: NPOV
 * 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: