Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 14:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well seeing as I've involved in the project, but haven't done any work on this article (and if I did then it was so minor that I can't recall), I'll do the review for this one. I've taken a quick glance through and I've spotted some uncited stuff already, but I'll add the points as I come across them below. Miyagawa (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles to compare this one to have to be Star Trek (film) and Star Trek: Insurrection. However, it has to be kept in mind that the first "new" film would have had a great deal more information about the casting etc, and Insurrection had a specific book written about it - so there potentially might be more detail in production for that film than available for Into Darkness.

Lead: The lead is a bit short - but frankly as that has to summarise the remainder of the article, we'll come back to the lead after any other issues with the article are rectified.

Plot: The plot could do with a little trimming as it is a bit on the large size. I think it only needs to lose about 10% and it'll be fine. Also although its missing from Star Trek (film), each role should have the actor playing it in brackets afterwards (as seen in the Insurrection article).

Cast: All it is right now is a simple list of the casting. It would be better if there was some sort of actual information here, to talk about the cast's opinions on their characters etc and the casting in general. For sources, the official Star Trek website interviewed every main cast member in preparation for the release of this film - I'd start with that.

Development: "It was reported" is used in both of the first two sentenced - and it feels repetitive. It would be better if one of those could be redrafted and reworded.

Filming: I've highlighted a source on the talk page in relation to the filming of the movie. If you don't have access to Questia, I'll see what I can do to get you the text of the article.

Themes: The first two paragraphs are uncited, including the quotes.

Distribution: Release dates are uncited.

Marketing: The two events on 14 December could be linked closer so that you don't have to repeat the date in the following sentence.

Promotional tours: The Zoe Saldana quote in the first paragraph needs a direct citation.
The final line of the last paragraph (about the Russian appearance) is uncited.

Reaction: This section is more typically called "Reception" (its also called Reaction for some reason in the Star Trek (film) article).

Note the cite needed tag.

References: What makes the following cites reliable? : #1, #8, #10,
Incomplete citation templates: #7, #8, #9, #13, #18, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25...
- Gonna stop with the listing of the cites there. Needless to say, you need to check all the cites to make sure that the templates are filled out as much as possibly available. In the very least, access date, source, title - then author, date of publishing and all the other stuff if available. But there are sources and access dates missing from references at the moment.

Missing information: As I see it there is no reference to the denial by the production team of Khan being in the film and about the whole John Harrison film. Also, wasn't Del Toro rumoured specifically to be playing Khan? It would also be good to see if any of the rumour mill stuff about the villain is possible to cite - off the top of my head I remember reading stuff about how it was going to be Gary Mitchell. Also the Countdown to Darkness comic could do with a mention, as could any novelization if information available.

I'm going to place this one on hold for a week as per the norm. Let me know if you'd rather I failed it now and you can relist when you work through that lot. Otherwise, once this has been sorted, I'll go back through and look at the prose and also have a think about the lead. Miyagawa (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added actors' names to Plot section. GoingBatty (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Reaction section header. GoingBatty (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All references now have a work and/or publisher field. GoingBatty (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to fail this nomination as we're now past the seven day mark and there is still plenty to do. Work through this list in your own time (trying to do it here will only rush things) and then when you renominate the reviewer will probably stick mostly to prose as you'll have rounded out the article somewhat. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cast in Plot?[edit]

Not sure whether it's appropriate to add this here or not, but I think the note about adding actor names to the Plot conflicts with guidance frequently provided at WP:FILM, where in the interests of keeping plot summaries short it has been established as completely acceptable to omit actor names from the Plot section provided there is a Cast section. In fact, if I took an interest in shortening the Plot section here, removing the actor names would be one of my most likely trims. DonIago (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]