Talk:Willow (1988 film)/GA1

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


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * the cast section needs to be rewritten in prose. Perhaps also consider if you can find a way to do so for theu list in the sequels section.
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * some of major sections are missing, such as soundtrack, reception, etc.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * The reception information should be moved to its own section ✅
 * B. Focused:
 * plot section is too long
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * There is only the infobox cover; there are no screenshots to depict the film.
 * Also, because of the claim in Visual effects, a short clip of some of the morphing may also be appropriate (since a screenshot would not easily suffice). Given that it is an important part of the creation and notability of the film, it may be a good idea to upload, though it would have to be in ogv format.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

The release section needs to be split. The reception, reviews and criticism should be in it's own section and information on the release itself should be in its own.


 * Per WP:MOS, the Plot section is fine, and fairly short compared to the majority of film articles. Also, a soundtrack section is not mandatory. In addition, I fixed your concerns with the Reception. Wildroot (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Per Film Style Guidelines a section on the soundtrack is usually added. Given the level of coverage Willow has, I am certain there is imformation out there about the soundtack, enough to satisfy WP:V that it exists at the least, if not more. じん    ない   23:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I just need to find a suitable photo, fix the Cast  and write about the Soundtrack . Good idea and suggestion. I will eventually get to that. Wildroot (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While that will go a long way (i really suggest you try and find, or ask someone for, a clip of the morphing scene at the wikiproject and explain that it is important to represent the impact of the work on development of the technology.
 * However, the character list could use some tweaking still. Give some description what those characters are in the form of a sentence or two. See Casablanca for a good idea what I mean. And remove the red-linked name unless you plan to make an article in the future for that person. じん    ない   00:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know what you mean. Also, I was not trying to sound sarcastic with that previous comment. Sometimes I talk like that. Don't worry, I will get this handled eventually. Like tomorrow....or something. Wildroot (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed the general concerns. However, even if I try and ask other editors at the WikiProject talk page, I highly doubt anyone would offer assistance. Sorry. Let me know what you think. Wildroot (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well overall i think this article has come with a significant improvement. However, the lack of a soundtrack section is key because the information is out there and easily available. GA articles shouldn't be missing any relevant sections and a quick search on google has shown that there is a soundtrack out there. じん    ない   08:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What? Sorry, but I added a Soundtrack section. It's right there in the article. I think Willow is ready for GA-status. Wildroot (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Add a cite for it and you'll be done. Try MusicBrainz if you can. じん    ない   21:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added citations for the album section. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ebert, Siskel, Kael and?
I read on IMDB that the two-headed dragon was called the "Ebersisk" as a direct reference to Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel. Likewise, i assume that the evil general Kael was named after Pauline Kael. Are there any other film critics aimed at in this movie?--RCS (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)