# Talk:Jurassic Park III

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jurassic Park III/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Empty review? I guess you're still reviewing... sorry I get used to seeing the review page pop up on my watchlist when it already has a review :) Gary King (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to confuse you. Yes, I always start the review then go through the article as I make notes. Peanut4 (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead
"Jurassic Park III is a 2001 film and it is the third film of the Jurassic Park film series." I don't think you need the "it is", certainly not the "it".
Plot
"InGen compound", InGen needs explaining or should be mentioned prior to this citation.
"When Grant separates" One man can't separate, possibly "When Grant becomes separated from the group, ..."
Cast
"a world-famous paleontologist who survived the incident on Isla Nublar and has ..." From memory this is in one of the earlier films. I'd add a brief note to say in which film if that is indeed correct.
Release
"The film earned $181 million domestically" What does domestically refer to? I would say "The film earned $181 million in X and ..." to avoid any confusion.
It shouldn't take too much to solve these fairly minor issues. Peanut4 (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I do not mean to interfer but why has the lack of references in the plot etc not something that needs to be addressed before it gets promoted to GA. I would of thought more refs were needed in plot etc for it to be able to be passed. I would be greatful to hear a response. Thanks. 02blythed (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It is something that does surprise me too, but film plots don't need referencing per WP:FILMPLOT. Peanut4 (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok I was just saying it seemed weird that there were no refs but if this is policy then thats ok other than that the article seems GA quality. 02blythed (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay all done. Gary King (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Final review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

I'm sure I don't need to bore an experienced editor and reviewer like yourself with a full review and any guidance on where to go next. Suffice to say, it was a pretty easy pass from the word go. Good work. Peanut4 (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The plot section would be impossible for someone who had never seen the movie to follow.  One minute they are in a plane; the next minute "Grant objects to landing and awakes to the sound of a megaphone". Then while the man with the megaphone is killed, and the plane crashes, etc. Anyone who has seen the film knows that this is where the plane lands, and they all got OFF the plane, and then run back on board and attempt to takeoff, but crash before they can climb away. If you haven't SEEN that, you might wonder how there is a man with a megaphone while they are on the plane, and conversely, how they manage to crash the plane if they had landed. The rest is just as bad. I can barely follow it and I saw the film once years ago. 
07:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.165.28 (talk)