Talk:Rocket Science (film)/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

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

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. I generally look at coverage and structure first and then, if there are no serious issues there, do a detailed walk-through of the sections checking refs and prose. I will also leave "Plot" until I've reviewed the other sections, as I haven't seen the movie and hope reading some of the refs will fill in the details for me. I generally leave the lead and images until last, when the main text is OK.

Overall I really like the look of this article and, provided the refs stand up, I hope it will pass it as a GA pretty quickly. --Philcha (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage[edit]

  •  Done Do any sources mention works or creators that influenced Rocket Science? At Jeffrey Blitz on Rocket Science mentions Billy Wilder and Hal Ashby, and absurdist comedy. Please explain the ther contributions of these influences, and distinguish between those credited by Blitz and those suggested by e.g critics. --Philcha (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Blitz' "In some ways, it’s the anti-Spellbound. Because Spellbound has a kind of dramatic arc that it stays faithful to, whereas Rocket Science really goes out of its way to sloth off that arc" (Rocket Science - Jeffrey Blitz interview) may be worth using. --Philcha (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done His "I drew on all sorts of tropes from those movies [sports] ... so I let the audience do the work of surprising themselves" may be worth using, i.e. he teased audiences by using their own expectations (mental judoTM). Likewise his "So, I was very aware of the clichés of the genre [teen movies]. I tried to undo them without wrecking them" (interview with mr. blitz).--Philcha (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tried to add in most of those. —97198 (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structure[edit]

  • I'm not sure if "Themes" is in the right place, but I'll worry about this at the end of the review - no immediate action required. --Philcha (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I'm not sure if "Score and soundtrack" should be its own section or a sub-section of "Production". Can you please explain why did you make a separate section? -Philcha (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, it made sense to me for the soundtrack details (including the track listing and the infobox, etc) to be out of production because the physical soundtrack CD was separate to the production of the film itself. Then, it made sense to have all of the music/score details lumped together with the soundtrack. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't feel that information about the separate soundtrack should fall under production of the film (but I also feel that all the music-related info should be together). Sorry about repeating myself there. —97198 (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was already coming round to that view by the end of the review, and now fully agree - thanks. --Philcha (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General[edit]

  • The article talks about "debate team", while "debating team" sounds better to me. It could be a dialect issue, as I'm a Brit. Can you please check what the sources use. --Philcha (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blitz uses "debate team" in at least 1 interview, so that's OK. --Philcha (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also say "debating team" but I think "debate team" is the common American term. —97198 (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why I struck out the comment. --Philcha (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Themes[edit]

  •  Done Re "When writing the film, ...", I'd prefer "When writing the script, ..." --Philcha (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I think Blitz' "his stuttering becomes, in my mind anyway, a metaphor for that [ lack of mastery]" (Rocket Science - Jeffrey Blitz interview) looks like a key point, otherwise Hal's stutter is just a hang-over from the autobiographical elements Blitz tried to eliminate. I think that's consistent with Blitz' making Hal more timid than Blitz was as a teenager. --Philcha (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Can you verify that Rocket science is the Production Notes? If so, please link to it in the ref. --Philcha (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Of course being a reviewer, I shall now check all the refs to it - it's the nature of the beast :-) Philcha (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done The section needs more 3rd-party commentary. E.g. "the quirky details of ambitious kids. Competition becomes a magnifying glass on their strengths, flaws and blind spots" (Interview: Jeffrey Blitz looks worth mentioning. NB that alone would not be enough - I suggest you look around and use the top 3-4 points from external sources, and drop the least important 3-4 points voiced by Blitz to prevent the section form becoming too long. --Philcha (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have tried to reshape the section - what do you think now? —97198 (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it's too long, and that the comments on the various types of theme should be grouped together:
  • communication and expression.
  • love and sex.
  • control over one's life.
The boxed quote from Blitz duplicates content in the main text.
I can see 2 poossible lead sentences:
  • The film takes its title from Hal's closing line "that understanding love shouldn't be rocket science" - it looks wrong to bury an expoanantion of the title in mid-para.
  • Chang's "eloquent about love, self-realization and adolescent angst" looks like a broader summary, touching on all the themes. --Philcha (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have rewritten again. 1st para is a brief overview of themes; 2nd para is about love/sex and also adults vs children; 3rd para is about communication/expression. Your thoughts? —97198 (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really like that, thanks! --Philcha (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done At interview with mr. blitz it's the interviewer who says, "you have Hal who stutters and then you have the elite debaters who are at the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to speech and communication", but the article's text makes it sound like another quote from Blitz. --Philcha (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "But the film's title stems not from Blitz's disheveled appearance but from a Hal quote: that understanding love shouldn't be rocket science" (For him, good movies aren't rocket science looks like an essential point. That review has other nuggets you should consider.--Philcha (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cast[edit]

  •  Done Overall there's so much to say about this movie that I think the casting details could be made shorter. For example I think the key points are: auditons were held several cities (I see no need to list them) in Blitz wanted Carter Jenkins but NBC made Jenkins unavailable as he was under contract for further episodes of Surface (I'd omit "hiatus", as that needs the explanation provided at Surface); they had to fill the gap in 2 weeks or else;on reviewing unsolicited audition tapes they thought Reece Thompson was "a promising candidate" and won the 2nd round of auditions; although Thompson had been taught how to stutter, he had to learn the type of stutter Blitz had in mind, where Hal would know he was going to block up on a particular word and have to find ways of working round it. I can see how to phrase the item about Anna Kendrick more concisely - but would keep the part about " spreading" as bonus info for readers (if they're disappointed with the explanation, serves them right for having dirty minds). Please look for ways to make the whole of "Cast" more concise.--Philcha (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have trimmed some parts. Let me know if there's anything else in particular that you think could get the chop. —97198 (talk) 09:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What you've done looks pretty much right. The comments about Piazza's and Yoo's creative interpretation skills illustrate Blitz' approach to direction. I've shortened the bit about Thompson's being previously taught how to stutter, but all the other points are significant. I've also copyedited the bit about Carter Jenkins. Does that work for you? --Philcha (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done The items about Kendrick and Nicholas D'Agosto both mention "spreading". To avoid duplication, please consider making this a separate para at the end of "Cast". --Philcha (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have shortened D'Agosto's summary a little and reworded slightly so readers know that what he did was roughly the same as Kendrick. —97198 (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I removed "(see above)" as it's only 4 lines above. --Philcha (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've copyedited the description of "spreading" to "a rapid-fire delivery" as that describes the effect better, even if the etymologicaly it's a contraction of "speed reading". --Philcha (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Did Jenkins have to learn "spreading" too? If so, that would have been quite a challenge when combined with a new stuttering technique. In fact Thompson said he did not, as he did little debating on screen. --Philcha (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I know, Jenkins didn't go under any training before he pulled out, but Thompson certainly didn't have to learn spreading because the character struggles to say anything at all. The only time Hal speaks successfully in a debate is when he sings at the end. —97198 (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Blitz' policy of avoiding celeb cameos applied to all of the casting, not just Jonah Hill as the Junior Philosopher. Then Murphy's Law struck, and Hill became a celeb while Rocket Science was in production - see e.g. interview with mr. blitz. --Philcha (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's fine as it is, considering that Blitz only brought up the discussion on cameos when talking about Hill. Is there anything specific that you'd prefer to see here? —97198 (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, later in that interview he says "We talked a lot about whether or not we were going to do celebrity cameos in the adult roles. And I, from the beginning, felt like it would be a terrible mistake... They're not onscreen long enough for them to become someone other than the celebrity." That's a discussion that would have happened very early in casting, possibly before the script was finalised since scripts are often adjusted for the perceived strengths / preferences / images of stars. If Blitz wasn't retconning during the interview, Hill accidentally broke the policy after casting was complete. --Philcha (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've moved cameos to a separate bullet point based on what you've pointed out. —97198 (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the bullet from the "no cameos" para, as it's not part of the list of characters. --Philcha (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
does the job well and concisely - thanks! --Philcha (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The item about Kendrick uses ref [4], see note above. --Philcha (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done No mention of "Hal’s hilariously vain therapist Lewinsky (Maury Ginsberg)". --Philcha (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The item about Nicholas D'Agosto uses ref [4], see note above. --Philcha (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The item about Vincent Piazza uses ref [4], see note above. --Philcha (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The item about Aaron Yoo uses ref [4], see note above. --Philcha (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The item about Josh Kay uses ref [4], see note above. - leaving no usable refs --Philcha (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The item about Aaron Yoo uses ref [4], see note above. --Philcha (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The item about Denis O'Hare uses ref [4], see note above. --Philcha (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I've checked all cites of "Production notes" (was ref [4], now [3]) in this section, they're absolutely right. --Philcha (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conception[edit]

  •  Done "After the success of his 2002 documentary Spellbound, Jeffrey Blitz was keen to film another documentary, but his agents encouraged him to write fiction because of the larger revenue brought in by fiction films" cites Documentaries call to 'Spellbound' director Jeffrey Blitz, but agents keep calling him back, which does not actually suport the statement. In fact it says, ""Rocket Science" and "Spellbound" director Jeffrey Blitz would like to keep switching from documentary to drama, but he can't". This poorly-written sentence implies that after the doc Spellbound it was drama's "turn", and says nothing about fiction being more lucrative. --Philcha (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried to reword this, as he does say vaguely in the article "My agents aren't crazy about it [making more docos], because you make a lot more money in fiction film". —97198 (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I guess that's the best that can be done when the source is poorly-written. --Philcha (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filming[edit]

  • The para begining "The night before filming began, Blitz took Thompson, Piazza and Yoo to dinner ..." cites only ref [4], see note above. --Philcha (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done The part about child labour laws could be much more concise, e.g. "Blitz chose to film in Maryland, as its child labour laws are much less restrictive than those of New Jersey, where the movie is set. This was important because Reece Thompson, who was sixteen years old at the time, appears in almost every scene". --Philcha (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done} The part about the wage rebate is unclear - unfortunately the cited source is as clear as mud. Can you find and summarise a clearer one? --Philcha (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Couldn't find another source but tried to simplify it a bit. —97198 (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, KIwhen theSource isStupid. --Philcha (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Design[edit]

  • Does this not come before filming in the production process? -Philcha (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First 3/4 of the section uses ref [4], see note above. --Philcha (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blitz' comments about Hal Ashby are in place here, as they focus on design. But I'm less sure that's the case for Wilder - Blitz seems to be talking about the overall tone of Wilder's work. --Philcha (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I've checked all cites of "Production notes" (was ref [4], now [3]) in this section, they're absolutely right. --Philcha (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Score and soundtrack[edit]

Fair enough, since it is also published as hard-copy. --Philcha (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Repeats list of instruments used. --Philcha (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't really understand this...? —97198 (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Barzelay composed the score using a ukulele, accordion, cello, tuba, trombone, banjo and kazoo" is followed by Barzelay's comments on the use of some of these. My inclination would be to scrap the complete list and keep Barzelay's comments, as they are more informative and colourful. --Philcha (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done. —97198 (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's painful discarding material you've researched, but I think the result is more colourful because the greyer catalogue is gone. I confess to having a bee in my bonnet about the need to brighten up Wikipedia, and if the sources give me chance I take it, even in science articles. --Philcha (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rating[edit]

  •  Done Does the MPAA give reason for its ratings? Did anyone other than Blitz comment on the rating? --Philcha (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added the "official" MPAA justification. Couldn't find any rating-related comments from critics. —97198 (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find! And its phrasing makes Blitz' complaints seem pretty reasonable. --Philcha (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theatrical release[edit]

No, that looks like a web-only source, so {{cite news}} is wrong. It's archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20070516215416/http://blogs.indiewire.com/lincoln/archives/13103.html, archive date May 16, 2007. Internet Archive is an essential tool and should be your second option if you can't find a new live URL for a page. --Philcha (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe I just don't know how to use Internet Archive... couldn't find it there myself! Added URL back in. —97198 (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See notes at User:Philcha#Tools (currently last item). Feel free to make your own copy. Then do what it says.--Philcha (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found that {{cite web}} messes up on archivurl= while {{citation}} works OK. Since {{citation}} and {{cite xxx}} format the refs slightly differently, MOS says (somewhere) that they should not be mixed. So I've changed all refs to {{citation}} - a pretty quick job with WikEd, see User:Philcha#Tools. Will post a sharp message at {{cite web}}. --Philcha (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty good work. But:
  • I found one at Internet Archive, see above.
  • "2007 Philadelphia Film Festival" (currently ref [38]) gives no URL and indiewire's site search was unhelpful. However Google retuends a ton of hits for "2007 Philadelphia Film Festival" and one of these should help. --Philcha (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref [41] "Screening schedule" says the publisher is "Magazine", but the w-link says it's Variety. --Philcha (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Home media[edit]

Nicely fixed, thanks! --Philcha (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reaction[edit]

  •  Done I think "Critical reception" is the more usual title for this type of section. --22:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I w-linked Review aggregator. --Philcha (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Should mention that Metacritic's 74% score means "generally favourable reviews". --Philcha (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

  • Green tickY Reading the refs in the other sections, I'm happy that this is a good summary. --Philcha (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Re "teaching of abstinence", does that mean sexual rather than e.g. from alcohol or drugs? --Philcha (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sexual; added in. —97198 (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I w-linked abstinence --Philcha (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "Hal will be competing with Heston for the day" is ambiguous, later text means they're team-mates. --Philcha (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to "paired with Heston". —97198 (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's neat. --Philcha (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of images[edit]

Green tickY The article has 2 non-free images, the poster (in infobox) and the class room scene. Both are relevant to the text they illustrate and have appropriate FURs. --Philcha (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links check[edit]

  •  Done The link checker is a very a useful tool, make a note of it and use it before submitting articles for review. In case you forget to make a note, it's also on my User page. In its report on this article:
    • code 200 ("OK") is fine. Other codes indicate suspect URLs, ...
    • codes 301 and 302, which occur a few times, are redirects but possibly to a home or other page rather than to the content you cite. You should: Google for the title, in case the content has moved ot a new URL; if not found, try plugging the original URL into Internet Archive. See User:Philcha#Tools for details. --Philcha (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I re-ran the link checker and offical web site now redirects to a sales page for the DVD - is that what you intended? --Philcha (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - the distribution company was sold and the site was redirected (that's why I removed the original production notes link). I've removed the link. —97198 (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I expected. Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall impression[edit]

Blitz is a prolific and entertaining interviewee, but I think that's created a trap into which this article falls - the amount of space given to Blitz' thoughts about the movie makes the article look like it violates WP:NPOV; and then when the article does a good job of summarising the commercial and critical reception, there's a big sense of let-down after Blitz' entertaining comments. What to do about this? I suggest:

  • Reduce the length of "Themes" by about 40% and make at least half of it based on critics' comments.
  • "Conception" is quite reasonably about the "insider" processes that led to the film's production, and any 3rd-party accounts would ultimately be based on Blitz' account, so that's not a problem. However "Conception" is simply twice as long as it should be.

There also a few references issues, mainly the vanishing of indiewire.com pages, which I hope can be resolved via Internet Archive.

At present this article does not meet the GA criteria because of the balance and referencing issues. However I think these should be relatively easy to resolve, and hope to be able to pass the article as a GA after improvements have been made.

NB I have not yet reviewed the lead, but there's little point in doing that before the main text issues are resolved, and it should then be a fairly quick task. --Philcha (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

(left until content stable)

  •  DoneThere's a little too much about the travails of casting the lead, and "visited seven American and Canadian cities" is not longer quite so detailed in the main text.
It'll do. --Philcha (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done"... cast Thompson after viewing a tape ..." makes it look as if they didn't audition him. --Philcha (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done re "others believed that the film was deliberately quirky and uninteresting", I think "uninteresting" refers to Berardinelli's review, and his complaint was that the central character was too uninteresting. -Philcha (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addressed the first two points and changed third to "forgettable" based on Berardinelli's "not especially memorable" comment and Gleiberman's criticism. —97198 (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Berardinelli described both the film and the main char as "uninteresting". --13:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


Wow, thanks for the very thorough review. I'll be in and out of activity today but hopefully will be more active over the next few days. Hope you don't mind my striking your comments when I've taken care of them. —97198 (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been more active than I thought I would be. I've taken care of most little things, but am yet to get to points requiring more effort. —97198 (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt response. Can you please let me known when you will not be working on this, so that we can avoid edit coflicts.
One day, perhaps soon, I'll propose at WT:GAN that we standardise how comments are marked up. I use  Done for resolved items as that shows up loud and clear at the start of the item,  Not done if I think there's a need to emphasise an unresolved issue, and strike-out if I withdraw a comment (sometime with grumbles about my mental deterioration). --Philcha (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you want the specific times I'll be working on this, but I'm usually active (weekdays) around 5am to 1pm UTC. There's not much left to do now, anyway... —97198 (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that lets me know how to avoid edit conflicts in the review. --Philcha (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... I think I've addressed (or tried to, at least) just about everything. The only thing I really haven't been able to do is shorten Conception. I tried to cut some bits out but ended up adding in more, different info per your suggestions in Coverage above. Do you have any specific recommendations? —97198 (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've made it about 1/3 smaller than just before the review, and it's now quite punchy. Nice work. --Philcha (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pass as GA[edit]

I'm very pleased to say that this article meets or exceeds the Good Article criteria: it provides good coverage, is neutral and well-referenced, clearly-written, complies with the parts of WP:MOS required for a GA and uses appropriate images that have good captions and comply with WP's policies on images.

Many thanks for your prompt responses to comments - it's been a pleasure working with you. In fact even checking the refs was (almost) fun :-)

If you've got 2 or more articles to GA status, please consider reviewing some other GA candidate articles. You'll find a list of candidate articles at WP:GAN, grouped by subject area. In addition to the instructions there and the Good Article criteria, I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. If at any stage in a review you are uncertain about how to handle something, ask at WT:GAN, where experienced reviewers will be happy to help. --Philcha (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rocket_Science_(film)/GA1&oldid=1136235928"