Talk:Terminator 2: Judgment Day/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) 03:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review page, full review will be posted shortly. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, review is now on hold pending changes. If anything needs clarification, just ask. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are some remaining things to be improved, but all in all I think this is good enough. Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Writing and formatting[edit]

As you know, the requirements for writing and formatting are significantly lower at the GA level than the FA. Thus, I'm being slightly stricter here than I normally would be for GA, but am still well below "brilliant" prose and nitpicky MOS details

  • "required an unprecedented budget of more than $94 million (1991 dollars), much of which were" - should be "was", as the object is the budget
  • ✔ Fixed.
  • "has sent back a reprogrammed T-800 Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger), identical to the one that attacked Sarah" - if it's reprogrammed, how can it be identical?
  • ✔ Replaced identical with similar.
  • "The Terminator and the T-1000" - I thought the T-1000 is a Terminator?
  • "The Terminator informs John and Sarah about Skynet" - but didn't you say earlier that Sarah had been preparing John to lead the fight against Skynet? How could she do that if neither of them knew what it was?
  • Sarah knew that Skynet would fight the humans, but she didn't know when the machines would become self-aware.
  • Which would still imply to me that she knew about Skynet...I'm not trying to be dense, but I've never seen this movie, so the description is a bit confusing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to protect the life of John Connor while he is still a child" - can this be worded more directly?
  • ✔ Removed "the life of".
  • Be consistent in whether or not Resistance and Terminator are capitalized
  • ✔ Fixed.
  • Check semi-colon use throughout. For example, "Hamilton underwent an extensive thirteen-week training regimen with personal trainer Anthony Cortes; training for three hours each day" - semi-colon should either be a periodcomma, or a colon if "training for" is removed
  • ✔ Semi-colon has been replaced with comma.
  • "ten-year old son" -> "ten-year-old son"
  • ✔ Fixed.
  • ✔ Fixed.
  • "Furlong had no prior acting ambitions at the time" - would normally say "no prior acting experience" or "no acting ambitions", but current phrasing seems odd
  • ✔ Fixed.
  • In general, your manner of introducing direct quotes could be smoother
  • "A.D." -> "AD"
  • ✔ Fixed.
  • "both of whom portray John's foster parents, Janelle and Todd Voight, respectively" - could simplify "both of whom" to just "who" and remove "respectively" altogether
  • ✔ Fixed.
  • WP:OVERLINK - no need to repeat links multiple times, particularly not in close proximity
  • "before starting to assemble the film crew for Terminator 2.." - punctuation error
  • ✔ Fixed.
  • "Starting with the Mojave Desert, principal photography spanned over 186 days between October 9, 1990, and April 4, 1991, during which the crew visited 20 different sites throughout California and New Mexico" - confusing as written because you're splitting the locations - keep days with dates and move the first location to the end
  • ✔ Fixed.
  • "These locations were varied" - if they're different sites, this can be assumed; suggest simply "These locations ranged from" (or "ran the gamut from" if you want to be colourful)
  • ✔ Fixed.
  • "which saw a full-scale helicopter crash, a sliding tanker, along with other elaborate paraphernalia" - should replace either first comma or "along with" with "and"
  • ✔ Fixed.
  • "The production costs itself...required $51 million in total" - two grammatical errors here
  • ✔ Fixed.
  • "the film had nearly recovered its budget prior to the its release"
  • ✔ Fixed.
  • "would integral to the critical success of the film" ?
  • ✔ Fixed.
  • You repeat a quote, only once it's "mimetic polyalloy" and later "mimetic poly-alloy" - which is right?
  • ✔ "mimetic poly-alloy", fixed.
  • "could be able to morph" - "could" isn't quite the right word here
  • ✔ fixed -- "can morph".
  • Journal/newspaper names should be consistently italicized
  • "Terminator 2 was a box-office success, earning $204.8 million in the United States alone, and $519 million worldwide and was the highest grossing film of 1991, beating Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, and being TriStar Pictures' highest grossing film to date" - awkward, needs rephrasing
  • ✔ Fixed -- split into two sentences.
  • "presented in a slightly washed-out 1080p transfer and included no special features" - grammar
  • ✔ fixed "of the film that is presented in a slightly"
  • Don't need caps for Cassette Tape
  • ✔ Fixed.
  • "a list of films considered the most thrilling contribution to cinema in film history"
  • ✔ Replaced with "a list of films considered to be the most thrilling in film history"
  • Spell out LAPD
  • ✔ Fixed.
  • Check dash usage - when using dashes for sentence breaks, pick either spaced en- or unspaced emdashes and stick with your choice for the whole article
  • ✔ Fixed.
  • I think the table in the box office section is excessive. WP:WHENTABLE states Tables should not be used simply for layout, either. If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table. Clearly the information is not "tabular in nature" because there is only one row in the whole thing. I recommend remvoing the table and leaving it as prose. Betty Logan (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I think for the purposes of that particular information it allows the information to be clearly access without filtering it from prose and allows for easy comparison of figures between budget and region. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy and verifiability[edit]

  • FN 49 is actually Box Office Mojo, instead of Bafta.org as stated on Checklinks.
  • FN 35: page(s)?
  • I'm in the process of ordering the book.
-*✔ Fixed.
  • FN 33: normally I wouldn't question this source, but the sheer number of grammatical errors gives me pause - who on earth is this author, and what is the site's editorial policy?
  • According to [1], the editor is David Jefferson, who edited articles of the "The Magazine Library section from issue 9, between 1982 and 1995."
  • Okay, he would seem to be reliable enough for GA, though I remain astounded. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 45: publisher?
  • ✔ Fixed.
  • Technically I'm not supposed to say this at GA, but...citation format could be much more consistent
  • What makes this a reliable source? This? This? This?
  • IMDB is fine for external links, but right now it's used as a source. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking back at Den of Geeks, I really don't think it's non-RS. I mean, its publisher Dennis Publishing is responsible for The Week, Men's Fitness, Auto Express and ten other magazines.
  • Den of Geek solicits contributions from external writers, and writers aho aren't professional journalists. See [2] and [3]. On this basis, while DoG is a profesisonal media outlet since it has a professional staff, the author of the piece has to be taken into account i.e. if it is written "in house" fair enough, if not then it's not reliable. The Terminator piece is written by Ryan Lambie who is the assistant editor, so on that basis I would say DoG is a reliable source in this particular instance. Betty Logan (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecks of 4 sources found no issues with non-verifiability or copyvio
  • There is an incorrect claim in the article sourced to Box Office Mojo in the Box Office section (see [4]): Made for approximately $102 million (after inflation),[3] the movie was, at the time, the most expensive movie ever made. There is no clause in there that corroborates the claim that is the inflated budget; in fact, BOM doesn't inflate budgets, it records the cost at the time (if you were to inflate it, it would be about $140 million). Box Office Mojo is actually saying that the film cost $102 million to make at the time. Now, this figure just about contradicts every other source about the budget that says it cost $94 million, and it wouldn't be the first time BOM has inflated the budget. I suggest the figure is removed, or at the very least the 'inflation' claim itself is removed. Betty Logan (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for shedding light on the fact that BOM does not include the inflation figure in its works. I will clarify the sentence. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 10:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✔ Fixed.
  • The reliability of [5] at [6] is not clear. If these sites officially represent the actors fair enough, but if they are fan sites then they are not reliable. Betty Logan (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote was taken from Arnold Schwarzengger's website Schwarzenegger.com. The previous attribution to this website was dead, so I did a search, and the Robert-Patrick.ws link came up. If it's a major issue, I will remove the quote. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 10:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's only an issue if they are fansites. If the site is Robert Patrick's official site it can be used, if we can't establish that then it can't be used. Betty Logan (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, the quote was taken from Schwarzengger.com, so all the scrutiny would be directed toward that w/s. And no, Robert-Patrick.ws is not a fansite. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is equal scrutiny on where the information comes from and the site which we take it from. If I take something off the new York Times and put it on my personal web page, it ceases to be reliably sourced, because I could manipulate, fabricate, misrepresent or misinterpret the information. Betty Logan (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't realise the w/s was a fansite. I'll replace the photo with an image, until I can find a more reliable source. ✔ Replaced quote with an image.--Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terminatorfiles.com is not a reliable source. It is a self-proclaimed fansite (see [7]) and therefore fails RS as per WP:SPS. Betty Logan (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought about that too, but because I couldn't find any reliable sources, and due to my thought at the time that I was the only person who would be willing to improve the article, I took the plunge by deciding to use the website. I did ask people, mainly through the article's talk page, whether they own the book The Making of Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991), but there were no answers. I wanted to improve the article, but I didn't have to book, so I decided to do the next best thing -- use Terminatorfiles.com's articles. I would've thought it would be editorial judgment regarding the use of such websites, and also due to the circumstances at the time. If you're not happy still, then I will discuss with the reviewer Nikkimaria on the issue. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [8] at [[9]] is not reliable. Like IMDB it is user generated therefore fails RS. Betty Logan (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✔ Removed.
  • [10] at [11]. Another user generated site to source the track listings. Technically you don't need to source it because the CD itself serves as a primary source for the tracks. Betty Logan (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✔ Removed info.

Broad[edit]

  • I've generally seen "Release" and "Reception" as two separate sections in this type of article - any particular reason for your organization?
  • I've poured over Google Archives I couldn't find anything about the film's release or premiere. I'll search again tomorrow.
  • ✔ Added a paragraph about premiere and release.
  • I've found an IMDB page which lists the timing of the film's release and the amount of its gross in different countries. In light of your comment below, I assume that it can't be used. I'll hunt for more, but it looks like I cannot satisfy your request.
  • Maybe add a sentence or two about editing and post-production?

Neutrality[edit]

  • "to breath life into the main two Terminators" - try to avoid journalistic/PR phrasings like this
  • I'm not sure how to rephrase this, well, phrase.
  • Currently we have two figures for the budget: $94 million which seems to be given by most sources and $102 million given by Box Office Mojo. I generally suspect the lower figure is the more accurate one given the weight of sourcing behind it (the 102 million figure sounds like a marketing gimmick of the time so they could market it as the "first 100 million dollar film"), and the sources in the production section even give accounts for how the money was spent. While it is ok to include the BOM figure, the infobox gives too much weighting to it by choosing it over the 94 million figure. I think either the infobox should go with the 94 million figure (since this figure is better accounted for) or we should have a budget range as on some other film articles i.e $94–102 million. Betty Logan (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a slight problem with the cultural references section. The cultural references are each cited to the works themselves i.e. primary sources, rather than secondary sources. As per WP:POPCULTURE, secondary sources are preferable to establish the significance of the reference as being worthy for inclusion in the article: However, passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources. I did a similar section on the Don't Look Now article, and found film reviews or interviews with the director to be the best secondary sources for establishing the importance of these cultural references. The main thing there though, was that I tried as much as possible to avoid citing the referring film itself. For example, for the "Stallone as the Terminator" reference in Last Action Hero, this secondary source would be better, since it establishes the notability of the film reference and thereby places it into a cultural context. I don't think this issue should be a block to a GA though, it's just an area that could be improved IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed: would be nice to fix, but isn't an issue for GA status. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stability[edit]

  • Generally best to remove {{underconstruction}} and similar before GA-nomming
  • No edit warring or major recent disputes, some vandalism but no serious instability

Images[edit]

  • Being pedantic, but since File:Terminator.ogg is a temporal media, you actually have to explicitly say it's short in comparison to the original (and preferably give length of the original, if known)
  • ✔ Fixed -- I've added "(Short extract)".
  • File:T2soundtrackcover.jpg: this isn't used in the main infobox, but in a secondary
  • Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.
  • The FUR claims use in main infobox, which is the one at the top of the page; however, the image is actually used in a secondary infobox. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captions should meet similar standards for prose and MOS as article text (with the caveat that only captions that are complete sentences should end in periods)
  • Could you point me to the problem? I can't see it.
  • "Hamilton returned to her role as Sarah Connor from The Terminator" is a complete sentence, so should end in a period
  • "The film's visual effects used for the T-1000 were highly advanced for the time, combining state of the art CGI, prosthetics, and editing to bring the T-1000 to life. (0:20)": "film's" is redundant here, "state-of-the-art" is commonly hyphenated, "bring the T-1000 to life" is a journalistic phrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree on "Bring the T-1000 to life" being a journalistic phrasing, it's just a more interesting phrasing.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✔ Fixed. While we're talking about the T-1000's abilities, I'm not sure how to rephrase "Terminator 2 made extensive use of computer-generated imagery (CGI) to bring to life the main two Terminators." I cannot apply the similar changes from the caption in this case.
  • "vivify"? make realistic? make lifelike? My standard rephrasing for this cliche is "animate", but that's a bit trickier to use in the context of a film. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the phrasing is ok in this context; it gets to the point in a way readers can understand. If it is this tough to come up with an alternative phrasing then we risk losing the point by changing it. Betty Logan (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terminator_2:_Judgment_Day/GA1&oldid=1136229584"