This article has had quite the fall from grace in the last five years. Currently, from what I can tell, it does not possess x qualities of the
good article criteria.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "
clear and
concise", without
copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Lead does not cover the whole article, and fails to be consistent with other information (Russian-American film, infobox says U.S., UK and Germany produced). Corvoe(speak to me)19:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)reply
TonyTheTiger directed me here since I am still the most prolific contributor despite not editing the article in a major way since 2008. However, I never strove for Good Article status. My observations are as follows:
The "Cast" section could be better structured; maybe merge the "Casting" subsection to it since role preparation is not really part of casting (IMO).
The "Production" section is sloppily written with parts like "Mark Millar became much more enthusiastic about the project" (I really hope I didn't write that originally).
The "Release" section should have the most important information more upfront, such as the actual release date and the box office gross.
The "Reception" section is probably the weakest section in the article. I'd prefer to see the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic language improved, especially to identify how they classified reviews. In addition, there is excessive quoting. There do not seem to be any passages that were paraphrased. Wikipedia should be able to write in its own words and formal tone, especially to get away from the slang that some critics use.
The "Sequel" section is overly detailed and suffers from
proseline.
I'm in the same boat. I'll try to improve it, but I definitely don't have enough time at the moment to get it back up to GA status. Any other people you think we should ping here? Corvoe(speak to me)16:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)reply
This article has had quite the fall from grace in the last five years. Currently, from what I can tell, it does not possess x qualities of the
good article criteria.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "
clear and
concise", without
copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Lead does not cover the whole article, and fails to be consistent with other information (Russian-American film, infobox says U.S., UK and Germany produced). Corvoe(speak to me)19:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)reply
TonyTheTiger directed me here since I am still the most prolific contributor despite not editing the article in a major way since 2008. However, I never strove for Good Article status. My observations are as follows:
The "Cast" section could be better structured; maybe merge the "Casting" subsection to it since role preparation is not really part of casting (IMO).
The "Production" section is sloppily written with parts like "Mark Millar became much more enthusiastic about the project" (I really hope I didn't write that originally).
The "Release" section should have the most important information more upfront, such as the actual release date and the box office gross.
The "Reception" section is probably the weakest section in the article. I'd prefer to see the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic language improved, especially to identify how they classified reviews. In addition, there is excessive quoting. There do not seem to be any passages that were paraphrased. Wikipedia should be able to write in its own words and formal tone, especially to get away from the slang that some critics use.
The "Sequel" section is overly detailed and suffers from
proseline.
I'm in the same boat. I'll try to improve it, but I definitely don't have enough time at the moment to get it back up to GA status. Any other people you think we should ping here? Corvoe(speak to me)16:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)reply