The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot ( talk) 23:52, 14 November 2015 [1].
This article is about the 1995 sci-fi action comedy film that polarises viewers. This is my second nomination of this article for FAC, having now addressed all the concerns brought up at the first one, including putting the article through a thorough copyedit courtesy of the guild of copyeditors. Freikorp ( talk) 09:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Support—supported at the last nomination and see no reason not to do so again. — Cliftonian (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment - I've read through this a couple of times...it comes across as comprehensive. The prose is okay and I did spot some things that could be improved when I read it on my smartphone.....and now I am having trouble finding them...hang on. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Nothing else prose-wise is jumping out at me, which is a good sign.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I think in that case it's a tentative support from me. There might be some other prose-smoothing but I can't see specific examples of same. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Comments from Bollyjeff - It is better than before, but I going to make a few suggestions first:
Its looking pretty good now so...
Support —
BollyJeff |
talk 14:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
Comments from TenTonParasol
|
---|
Despite the length of the list, they're small things. Mostly the same comment about a certain usage of comma. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 00:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply |
Also! There was a discussion at WikiProject Film about making clear how aggregate sites, including Rotten Tomatoes, create their scores. While the discussion hasn't entirely moved into the direction of implementing anything, really. I thought I'd put it forward as a suggestion here. Ah, the article mentioned in the discussion, The Martian, has a sentence: "The website [Rotten Tomatoes], which categorizes reviews as positive or negative, surveyed 260 critics and determined that 93% of the reviews were positive with a rating average of 7.9 out of 10." I suggest considering adding this to the Tank Girl article, as it better explains what the number means and gives a arounder picture, in my opinion. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 00:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Comments (having stumbled here from my FAC)
Comments from Cirt (addressed)
|
---|
— Cirt ( talk) 03:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply
|
The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot ( talk) 23:52, 14 November 2015 [1].
This article is about the 1995 sci-fi action comedy film that polarises viewers. This is my second nomination of this article for FAC, having now addressed all the concerns brought up at the first one, including putting the article through a thorough copyedit courtesy of the guild of copyeditors. Freikorp ( talk) 09:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Support—supported at the last nomination and see no reason not to do so again. — Cliftonian (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment - I've read through this a couple of times...it comes across as comprehensive. The prose is okay and I did spot some things that could be improved when I read it on my smartphone.....and now I am having trouble finding them...hang on. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Nothing else prose-wise is jumping out at me, which is a good sign.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I think in that case it's a tentative support from me. There might be some other prose-smoothing but I can't see specific examples of same. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Comments from Bollyjeff - It is better than before, but I going to make a few suggestions first:
Its looking pretty good now so...
Support —
BollyJeff |
talk 14:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
Comments from TenTonParasol
|
---|
Despite the length of the list, they're small things. Mostly the same comment about a certain usage of comma. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 00:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply |
Also! There was a discussion at WikiProject Film about making clear how aggregate sites, including Rotten Tomatoes, create their scores. While the discussion hasn't entirely moved into the direction of implementing anything, really. I thought I'd put it forward as a suggestion here. Ah, the article mentioned in the discussion, The Martian, has a sentence: "The website [Rotten Tomatoes], which categorizes reviews as positive or negative, surveyed 260 critics and determined that 93% of the reviews were positive with a rating average of 7.9 out of 10." I suggest considering adding this to the Tank Girl article, as it better explains what the number means and gives a arounder picture, in my opinion. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 00:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Comments (having stumbled here from my FAC)
Comments from Cirt (addressed)
|
---|
— Cirt ( talk) 03:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply
|