Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 02:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of April 26, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pretty well written, a few points and recommendations, please respond below the entire review:

1. What's up with this? Was it ever sent to WP:GOCE? If so, did it get a copyedit from them? If so, can that be noted on the talk page please using {{ArticleHistory}}? If not, could you nominate it for WP:GOCE requests?
2. See also - would be nice to add a See also sect, with 5 links or so in that sect, then you can move the portal link up to that sect.
3. Star Trek: Insurrection – Selections From The Original Motion Picture Soundtrack - could this use its own article? What about adding a tracklisting? And perhaps an image of the album cover?

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout, but one suggestion here to make this even better:

1. Please add punctuation after image caption text, as the caption text for all the images happens to be full sentences in each case.
2. Please also add citations to the ends of those captions for that factual info that's stated there, figure, it can't hurt and can only be more helpful for the reader in the future.

3. Broad in coverage?: Article is indeed thorough, covers broad aspects of topic with multiple topic headings.

4. Neutral point of view?: Article is neutrally worded throughout.

5. Article stability? Upon inspection of article edit history and talk page history, article is stable going back over one month.

6. Images?:

1. File:Star Trek IX.jpg, fair use rationale could be improved, see model at File:Batman Begins Poster.jpg
2. File:Jonathan Frakes cropped1.jpg - image checks out okay.
3. File:Shimerman and Grodénchik by Beth Madison, 1.jpg - image checks out alright.
4. File:Ira Steven Behr.jpg - image page looks good.
5. File:High sierra trail.jpg - problem, image page formatting at Wikimedia Commons looks broken, please fix this?

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note regarding the soundtrack. Per MOS:FILM#Soundtrack, the consensus is not to have soundtrack cover images in film articles. Generally, though, if the soundtrack can be in a stand-alone article with sufficient context, it can have the image since it is on its own. As for the track listing, guidelines discourage mere listing of bland track titles, but maybe a workaround is to use a collapsible track listing template. That way, if readers want to actually see the individual tracks, they can expand the template. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on both counts. It would certainly seem in this case the soundtrack could have a standalone article. Also, there is certainly a way to do a collapsible track listing, this can be done easily with {{Track listing}} and setting "collapsed=yes". — Cirt (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to question about copyediting and GOCE

Ah, that was because I wanted it copy edited for the DYK nomination as the prose wasn't very good at the time. Because of the delays, it wasn't getting reviewed in time so instead I went through and did it myself. I meant to removed the GOCE request after that but forgot - I've just removed it now. It wasn't ever reviewed by them. Miyagawa (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please add it back. Even if they don't get to it in time for this GA Review itself, it can't hurt to have them do it in the future. — Cirt (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Keep us posted on the rest, here. :) — Cirt (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention - added a see also section and moved the portal link into it. I wasn't sure which links to include so I've only added a single link as that's what the section includes on the FA Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Miyagawa (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good so far, maybe some other films deal with similar topical issues and themes? — Cirt (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only one I could think of was Avatar (2009 film), in that the plots could be considered to be similar. Exploitation of a natural habitat with a rebellion by an element of those which would seek to do the exploiting. Miyagawa (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good one to add. There might be others in Category:Films about rebellions or Category:Films about extraterrestrial life? — Cirt (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through both categories and identified one more with similar themes, which was Battle for Terra. Never seen it myself, but it sounds similar. I placed a non-section header to break those two films away from the franchise link and to give some sort of explanation as to why they're there. Miyagawa (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Managed to fix the Commons page for that image. Thanks for pointing me at the other poster, I had no idea there was a specific template for the fair use sections for posters. So I've swapped out the rationale with the new poster template. Miyagawa (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added the punctuation and references to the image captions. Miyagawa (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music

I've added the track listing, but MOS:FILM#Soundtrack does say that it shouldn't be there as it was a film score composed by one person. Miyagawa (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, quite right. In that case, I'll defer to your judgment on whether or not to include it. — Cirt (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it as the MOS states not to do it. Miyagawa (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, thanks for being so responsive to the GA Review recommendations, — Cirt (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]