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

Reviewer: Xx78900 (talk · contribs) 14:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Some Dude From North Carolina:, I'm gonna being reviewing this article. Xx78900 (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   1a: Almost all of this article is suitably understandable, but I found areas of the plot section difficult to understand and also, crucially, different to the plot (I have seen this movie).* I would reword "also occupied by" to "along with" or something comparable, and mention that not all parties were at the beach to begin with. * Children becoming teenagers is not strange. mention how quickly it happens.* "an entire year of growth passing approximately every 30 minutes" -> I think this would be clearer if it read something like "the occupants of the beach undergoing the equivalent of a year of ageing every 30 minutes"* Though the article mention that the conditions of the people on the beach's conditions are "exacerbated", it doesn't say that the advanced time is what's exacerbating them. 1b: In regards to MOS:WTW, the plot section is once again hampering this article. The phrase tragedy is used, which contravenes MOS:EDITORIAL. All issues addressed.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   2b: I just need to confirm whether "The Cinemaholic" and "BoxOfficeMojo" are is considered a reliable sources, but otherwise no issues here. This is likely to be the only thing that might delay classifying this page as a Good Article as if I can't find that for myself I'll request a second opinion. I have just seen on your user page that you are heavily involved in film and screen media articles on Wikipedia, and by going through that page, I have confirmed that BoxOfficeMojo is accepted as a source on other Good Articles. I'd remove the cinemaholic reference, as it is only a supplementary reference anyway. I'm also just reviewing the sources now - the very first source doesn't match up with the quoted text. 2d: I don't have time to verify the plagiarism status just yet, so I'll get back to it tomorrow. Okay, found an hour to do a lil bit, we'll see how we go. Sport check about 20 sources, I'm satisfied that nothing is plagiarized, and quoatations are appropriately attributed..

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   3a: I wonder if this article deserves a section about how it deviates from the source material? A passing mention is given in the final section, but a quick google search shows that there are a lot of articles discussing these differences. I'm not 100% convinced that it's absolutely necessary in this instance, so judge it yourself and just tell me if you think it's unnecessary. Satisfied with response. 3bIn the lead, does it matter that it was filmed during the Covid-19 pandemic? It doesn't seem relevant unless it is specified that this delayed release. Either remove it or add that info*Is the statement from universal and Shyamalan about original production relevant? I'm on the fence. Like above, if you think that it is relevant, I'm happy to approve it. Satisfied with response.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No issues here

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No issues here

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   No issues here

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall I think this article is very solid, strong contender for GA with a few minor tweaks. Don't be disheartened by the all the "no"s, they really only barely failed. I'll verify sources tomorrow (24 September), then give a rating where I'll either put it on hold, or if you've fixed it in the meantime, I'll pass it. The only thing I can see delaying it, if the above issues are addressed, is me being able to verify the reliability of the mentioned sources. The only major issue this page has is that the quote from the first source doesn't match up. The following advice I think you could use to improve the article, though won't affect it's GA nomination status: I would mention the budget as a comparative in the Box Office section. You're permitted up to 700 words for the Plot section, and I think this article could do with having the plot expanded slightly. (There are currently ~500 words). I would also mention that Trent and Maddox are well into middle age by the time they stop the scientists. I don't know if "Meanwhile" is the right word to describe the polarized attitudes of critics. but remember, none of this last stuff will stop you getting that GA!

   Thank you for reviewing this article. I'll be adding my replies here as opposed to under each criteria section. For #1, I will be rewatching the film on Sunday and rewriting the plot section to around 700 words.  Working For 2b, I have started a discussion on whether the source is reliable here. For 3a, WP:FILMDIFF says that a section related to those differences can be added to explain "why they took place, how they affected production, and how outside parties reacted to them." Since sources simply list the differences and there was no impact, I won't add it. Finally, for 3b, it is generally acceptable to include the COVID-19 pandemic since it did impact the production of the film. For the second note, I believe it is relevant. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   @Some Dude From North Carolina: I've updated a couple of the parameters. In particular, I have changed criteria 3a and b to approved. I still think you should explain in the lede why COVID-19 is being mentioned, but having taken a second look, I don't believe that having it in their is in contravention of the standard required for criterion 3b, so have changed that to approved also. I will await consensus on the Cinemaholic source, but your first cited source still doesn't match your written quotation. I will also wait for an update to critera 1a +b. Xx78900 (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   The first source matches up with the dialogue in the video. I was going to use the transcript given for the source but it appears the article itself does not match up with the video interview. I'll work on the plot section today soon. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Having consulted the discussion page about Cinemaholic and the watching that video, I have updated section two to pass standard. Just section one and we’ll have a Good Article :)Xx78900 (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   @Xx78900: just finished rewriting the plot. Please take a look. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   And that’s a wrap! Great work in this article. :)Xx78900 (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]