Talk:Apollo 13 (film)/GA3

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 17:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dab links look good, but there are some issues with the external links that need fixing.
As a 40K long article, the lead needs some expansion to more adequately summarize the article, preferably with information from the plot and production sections which don't seem well represented. Done
Plot section: The actors need to be introduced with their roles, especially in an article like this where the actor and character each has an article. Done
Overlinking of KC-135, reduced gravity aircraft, and some of the actors names. Links should appear at most three times: In the lead, in the infobox, and on first reference after the lead. Done
"Cast training and filming" - since the section is so long, the references at the end aren't very helpful. I'd suggest referencing every sentence, or every few sentences, a little more specifically.
Also, the second graph in that section sounds out of place. I assume it belongs somewhere else. Done
"Box office performance" section: I suggest moving this box to a right-aligned position to let the text flow around it.
I'm surprised there isn't any pre-release information or marketing.
"Reception" section: "Kenneth Turan of Los Angeles Times gave a somewhat positive review ..." how do you define a "somewhat positive review?" I would say "mixed" review or just put in the rating he gave it. Done
"Edward Guthmann of San Francisco Chronicle gave a somewhat negative review ... " same as above. Done
The "Re-release" section needs to be expanded or merged into other sections, since it's too short to form its own. Done
Also, in that section, "The film was shortened by 24 minutes, and some profanity was removed." - needs a reference. Done
"Home Media" section needs to be expanded or merged, too.
"The film is reasonably faithful to the events of the mission, though some tension between the astronauts was added for dramatic effect." - this needs a ref. Done
References 10-13 need to be formatted according to the rest of the refs.
What makes ref 28 a reliable source? Done
What makes ref 34 a reliable source? Done

The article is good, but could use a few improvements. I'll check back soon. —Ed!^(talk) 17:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a progress report. Has anything been done? —Ed!^(talk) 16:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, item 2 is half done. Some extra work has been done (Cast rewritten) which isn't on your list. Please check the article and see my comments on the Talk page. Thanks. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied that (slow) progress is being made, but I'm concerned the back and forth between editors may threaten the stability of the article. The current improvements are good, so I'm content to sit tight and not rush to close the review. —Ed!^(talk) 19:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I'm going to have to fail the review now. Appreciable progress in the page has not occurred for several weeks, and outstanding issues remain. Feel free to renominate once remaining fixes are made. —Ed!^(talk) 02:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]