# Talk:The Day After Tomorrow (TV special)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Day After Tomorrow (TV special)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 23:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Let's get this done before you head away, then.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
"Commissioned to provide a child-friendly introduction to the special relativity theory of Albert Einstein in the form of an action-adventure" -> might just be me, but this seems like special relativity has theorised that there might be an Albert Einstein. Perhaps phrase it as "Commissioned to provide a child-friendly introduction to the special relativity theory devised by Albert Einstein in the form of an action-adventure"?"Criticism has been directed at the acting: in particular, Martin Lev's performance as the child character of David Bowen has been poorly received." -> I'd replace the colon with an em-dash, and I think you could use "the child character David Bowen"The plot section has a spaced em-dash ("sure — this"), should be unspaced instead ("sure—this").Production section uses spaced en-dashes as parentheticals, should use unspaced ems as illustrated above.The cast table seems a bit off. There's no border under the last row of cells, and no padding between it and the article text, which seems a little messy-looking. Can that be spaced out a little so there's a bit of padding between the text and the table?The quote boxes in reception should still use quotation marks around the quoted text.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
MOS is fine.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 
References seem okay. You cite ref 1 alongside other refs a lot, leading to it being very heavily cited. In some cases I'd remove it and just use the other citations used alongside it, just so it doesn't seem too heavily relied upon. Also, I'd prefer to see pages marked as "p.54" instead of "54", for example, though. It's all grand apart from that.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 
Scope is good.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Neutrality is good.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
History is stable.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Images are grand. Used well, and with solid rationales for each of them.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Going to hold this one. There's some 1A fixes needing addressed. The citation concerns are just aesthetic, so don't worry about them if you prefer the style you're already using.
Many thanks for this timely review. I believe that the 1a concerns that you raised have been fully addressed - in addition, I've given the whole article a thorough copyedit. I also take your point about overuse of citations and have eliminated all references to "Bentley, 315" in instances where it was present along with two other citations (therefore, each sentence is now followed by no more than two citations). Page numbers are now preceded by the "p." abbreviation. Thanks again. Regards, SuperMarioMan 17:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Reviewed the changes, and also managed to address the table thing as well (feel free to revert it if you preferred the style of your last version instead). Going to pass this one now. Well done! GRAPPLE X 18:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see, that's what you meant by padding - around the edges of the table. Sorry, I mistakenly thought that it was something to do with adding borders and cell-padding. I agree that the new version is much better. Now, I really must give H:TABLE another look... Anyway, thanks for passing the article! SuperMarioMan 19:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I probably should have been clearer. H:TABLE didn't have much going on about margins that helped, though. I had to trawl through my past experiments on a different wiki to remember the coding... GRAPPLE X 19:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 06:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)