Talk:War of the Worlds (2005 film)/GA1

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

Overall, this seems like a well-sourced, well-written, all around solid article. I haven't finished my review yet, but this should get you started. Please respond line-by-line and I'll strike as we go. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead:
 * "It is one of three film adaptations, alongside The Asylum's version and Pendragon Pictures' version." Do you mean one of three film adaptations from that year, or more specifically, from 2005?
 * Could you add the year (2002) to the mention of Minority Report? Either "after the 2002 film Minority Report", or "after Minority Report in 2002", or "after Minority Report (2002)"?
 * "...was shot through 73 days" Could you change to this "shot in" or "shot over"?
 * Believe it or not, "73%" should be "73 percent", as per WP:PERCENT. lol
 * Done them all.

Plot:
 * This section is too long. According to WP:FILMPLOT, it should be between 400 and 700 words, and as it stands right now, it's just shy of 1,000. Please shorten it down to at least 700, then I'll read it again more thoroughly.
 * Shortened to 729, is that enough?

Development:
 * Could you add a year to Catch Me If You Can? You can word it similarly to my suggestions for Minority Report in the lead section...
 * "...he just thought it would be fun to make a really scary film with really scary aliens". Could you reword this a bit? First of all, the use of "really scary" twice is redundant, and it's also not very encyclopedic dialogue. Also, it too closely resembles the exact wording from the source, and there's no quotation marks, so some variation is needed...
 * "...may be something born out of a fantasy notion but in fact is dealt with in a hyper-realistic way." Again, the wording is too similar to the exact wording from the source, so you should probably change it so it doesn't border on plagiarism...
 * "condensated" Did you mean "condensed"?
 * Done.

Filming:
 * "Spielberg managed to bring much of Munich's crew to work on War of the Worlds as well." The wording "managed to" strikes me as a bit unencyclopedic. Could you try rewording just that particular phrase?
 * Done. Expecting the rest of the review now. igordebraga ≠ 01:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The rest of my review... —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  17:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentence about how this "wasn't a cram course" and that Spielberg took his time, is immediately followed by a sentence about how Spielberg and Kaminski wanted to complete the film as quickly as possible. Don't these contradict each other?
 * Re-read the source, the sentence really isn't much correct. Removed.

Design and visual effects
 * "A scene which depicts Ray and his family are driving in their minivan when they come upon an increasing number of displaced persons." This sentence appears to need fixing...
 * Done.

Secrecy
 * "The media reporters' questions about the rumored plot was answered, but the reporters' said we may not get "straight answers"." I'm not sure what this means? Did the reporters suspect they weren't getting straight answers? Were they overtly told they weren't?
 * Removed.
 * Strangely, this section seems to have some overlinking problems the rest of the article did not. I don't think movies needs to be wikilinked considering we're so far into a movie-related article; let alone words like "mystery" and "e-mail" that definitely should not be. Can you go through and remove some of the unnecessary wikilinks?
 * Done (the overlinking was worse, believe me).

Reviews
 * "...instead they suggested to put about the aliens died of cold" Could you please reword this? It reads a little sloppy.
 * Done. Anything else? igordebraga ≠ 02:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A good article is:
 * 1) Well-written: Prose is good, MOS is good.
 * 2) Factually accurate and verifiable: Sources are good, no original research.
 * 3) Broad in its coverage: Covers main aspects, no unneeded detail.
 * 4) Neutral: Yes.
 * 5) Stable: Yes.
 * 6) Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.

Nice work. That's a pass. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  02:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)