Talk:Alvin and the Chipmunks (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Yovt (talk · contribs) 15:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Infoadder95 (talk · contribs) 16:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review of GA Nominee

To the person who nominated this article and other editors who worked tirelessly to improve this article; Congratulations! The article has been given the good article status but still, nothing is perfect, and the same can be said about this article.

Below I have highlighted the reasons I have passed this article for future reviewers if ever this article is sent for reassessment and some minor problems which can be improved upon for the betterment of the article.

Reasoning for passing the article

The article is neutral as it highlights both the pros and cons of the subject as it highlights the positive things about the subject in the starting sections and appropriately highlights the negative reception of the subject in the ending ones, giving the reader a neutral standpoint when reading the article but it may lean a bit towards the cons.
The article is written to appeal to a broad audience, making it accessible even to readers who may have little to no prior knowledge of the subject. Its out-of-universe perspective provides an objective and comprehensive overview, focusing on presenting facts and context without assuming any specific background from the reader. This is evident in the clarity of the explanations and the logical structure of the content, as even someone like me, unfamiliar with the topic, was able to gain a solid understanding upon the first reading. This approach ensures that the article serves as an informative resource for a wide range of readers, regardless of their familiarity with the subject.
The article is factually accurate and cited by reliable sources and does not make unsupported claims other than a couple of instances, like the ones highlighted in the "Problems that can be can be Improved upon section.
The article is written in a clear, concise, and accessible language, ensuring that readers can easily follow the information presented without confusion or ambiguity. Its straightforward phrasing helps maintain the reader's focus, eliminating the need for re-reading sections to grasp their meaning. Each sentence contributes to the overall understanding of the topic, avoiding overly complex jargon or convoluted expressions.
The article remains focused and concise, avoiding unnecessary detail or tangential digressions that could distract or overwhelm the reader. Each section is written to provide relevant information that directly supports the topic, ensuring that the content stays on track and maintains a logical progression. This clarity and purposefulness in writing create a smooth flow throughout the reading experience.
The article demonstrates a thorough adherence to copyright policies by exclusively utilizing public domain and fair use images to enhance the reader's understanding of the topics discussed. These images are carefully chosen to align with the subject matter, providing visual context without violating any copyright regulations. Additionally, the article avoids the inclusion of images with unclear or questionable licensing, ensuring that all visual elements meet the necessary standards for ethical use. This approach not only reinforces the credibility of the article but also highlights the editors’ commitment to upholding copyright compliance throughout.

Problems that can improved upon

The lead very accurately summarizes the article and not rigorously though but sufficiently follows the Mos, in fact it's an area with the least need for improvement but it still can be improved by shortening it a little bit.
The article is sufficiently cited but it too has some problems: The statement: "Chevy Chase, Jim Carrey, Tim Allen, John Travolta, Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn, and Bill Murray were originally considered for the role of David Seville. " is cited by the following 3 sources: https://www.vulture.com/2011/09/the-lost-roles-of-chevy-chase.html https://www.vulture.com/2011/10/the-lost-roles-of-tim-allen.html https://www.vulture.com/2012/02/the-lost-roles-of-bill-murray-part-two.html But none of them explicitly or even implicitly mention the initial consideration for the role of David Seville being given to actors Jim Carrey, John Travolta, Ben Stiller and Vince Vaughn. Also in another section: "Filming took place primarily in areas of Los Angeles." is cited by which is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia and does not even mention that the filming was primarily done in areas of Los Angeles. Before someone comes after me, yes the source mentions the first 3 minutes of the film filmed in June Lake on Oh! Ridge in Eastern Sierras but, Eastern Sierras is not a part of Los Angeles. Similarly: "Months before its release, film bloggers anticipated that Alvin and the Chipmunks would be a failure due to the involvement of the director of Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties (2006)" is cited by: which too is not a reliable source. Also: "While the Movieguide Awards named Alvin and the Chipmunks the third best family film of 2007" is cited by: which too is not a reliable source. These statements instead can be cited by reliable sources and also the citations should prove what is claimed.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.