Talk:Jurassic Park III

	Jurassic Park III has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 17, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jurassic Park III. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jurassic Park III at the Reference desk.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Science Fiction Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Dinosaurs Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Okay all done. Gary King (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. 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)[reply]

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)