Talk:Terminator 2: Judgment Day

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Terminator 2: Judgment Day was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: March 7, 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Terminator 2: Judgment Day article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
1. 15 June 2003 - 23 December 2007


Contents

[edit] Wording

It says "two men arrive in Los Angeles..." Isn't this a bit of a misnomer? -24.149.193.49 (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

At that point in the plot, that's all we know. Tool2Die4 (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Literary criticism?

I think this article would benefit from some literary criticism and consideration of how the film succeeds so spectacularly. While it's not my field, I can't help but be awed by the tremendous attention to detail in the plot and presentation that gives the film an organic integrity. For example, consider the motif of reversal: A car chase in reverse, the T-1000 reversing itself from the wall, Sara Connor acting as a Terminator, a Terminator acting as a father, John Connor teaching a Terminator how to mimic humans. But even small details: Sarah injecting the nurse with the sedative; the guard who is the real lunatic; when the laser dot settles on the back of the programmer's head, one of the pieces of equipment in front of him is displaying a similar red glow; a key is used to prevent a door from being unlockable; liquid nitrogen is apposed to molten steel, and so on. A similarly complex motif concerned the ability of machines to mimic people in the first Terminator.

By creating very general transformations of this type that appear to have almost mathematical validity within the aesthetic universe of the film, a framework is created by which nearly every event in the film recollects or foreshadows several others, and in this way a complex network of interactions is set up by which the film is crafted to hold together as a whole rather than a linear sequence of unconnected events. The existence of such a network, reminiscent of a biochemistry, or perhaps a Skynet, or perhaps most aptly the major connectives of a central nervous system, could act in my opinion as a definition of a life within the context of cinema. Wnt (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that makes these comparisons. Otherwise, this sounds like original research and prohibited on Wikipedia. — Val42 (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe so, but it's very eloquently laid out and I appreciated the thoughtfullness of your commentary Wnt! GG The Fly (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination

This article if very close to getting GA status. The references are clear and in my opinion, they are reliable. It's well written and contains a reasonably broad overview of the film story. But according the GA criteria all the images are copyrighted with fair use rationales and {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}} or similar tags. David Pro (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA 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 contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (enough images: lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

David Pro (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA fail

I have made a second review as requested.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. 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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

T2 has good points, but two major aspects of the review need major work. Wording in the Release and Home video sections need work, and discriptions of the cast in the Cast section won't hurt. Also, the article needs more references. It only has ten overall, and some sections don't even have one reference. When these problems are fixed, it can be nominated again. Limetolime (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I add that there is little point to the two images in the plot section, and the cast and production sections are barely fleshed out. Alientraveller (talk) 08:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations for use

Alientraveller (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Offline articles which one can read here. Obviously don't link to them as they are copyright violations, but still, an accessible form of citing old magazine/newspaper articles. Alientraveller (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)