Talk:S&Man

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:S&Man/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 12:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead does not fully summarize the article, please read and apply WP:LEAD

   The film compares the aspects of filmmaking and voyeurism. Which aspects?

   explaining what the film was originally conceived to be. Extremely poor prose.

   S&Man exposes the voyeuristic nature of faux snuff films and the desensitizing of modern society. needs in text attribution, sounds like a quote, otherwise it is POV

   S&Man is mainly focused around Eric Rost "focused around"?

   The film has a fictional subplot where Erik Marcisak acts as if he is Eric Rost in a role that tries to raise the question on whether or not Eric Rost's films are really snuff films. confusing and unclear.

   Finding a camera taping his neighbor's house for hours fascinated him so much that he thought that he should direct a film about it. sentence changes subject halfway through.

   OK, please take this away get it copy-edited by someone who can write good plain English. I am quick-failing this now on the shoddy prose. When you have had it copy-edit, please read and apply the good article criteria, then take it to peer review before renominating.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   You might like to investigate some more reliable sources. Fangoria, Bloody Disgusting, Dreadzone are hardly high-quality.

   Just a note that Fangoria and Bloody Disgusting are both listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#List of potential resources as "sources that have been established as reliable in the field of films per past consensus" (emphasis in original). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

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:

   Quick-fail on the extremely shoddy prose. I am sorry that you have had to wait so long and then get a quick-fail, but you could have avoided this by checking yourself that the article met the good article criteria before you nominated it. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to clarify that Fangoria and Bloody Disgusting are WP:RS and have been used in numerous GA film articles, especially Fangoria. —Mike Allen 19:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Dread Central has helped save articles in AfD. I tried fixing everything that was mentioned and renominated it. Hopefully I actually get a chance to fix things if there are anymore problems. SL93 (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:S&Man/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 07:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'll take this one. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See below
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	See below
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Fine
	2c. it contains no original research.	Fine
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	See below
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Fine...
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Fine
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Per definition. Only constructive edits
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fine. One image, valid FUR
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Only image is a poster, for identification
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Comments

1

1a

General

• Flow needs a bit of work, we're jumping from idea to idea here.
• If you provide more context, the flow should come naturally. Missing information seems to be what's killing the prose here.

Lede

• "It contains interviews with indie horror filmmakers and a scripted plot that comes into focus in the film's second half." ... "He interviewed experts in the horror and voyeur film industry. The experts include Carol J. Clover, a sexologist, and a forensic psychologist. Three faux snuff film directors, Eric Marcisak, Bill ZeBub, and Fred Vogel, are featured prominently. The film also features a fictional subplot that tries to make viewers question if Marcisaks' films are truly snuff." - If we're giving a summary, it should be in one place.

Plot

• Plots don't have to be referenced, so you could just watch the film and write the plot yourself. That would ensure a better flow.
• Also, would "Summary" work better?

Production

• "his neighborhood " - Whose?
• "the three other directors that would later become subjects of his documentary" - Who?
• "J. T. Petty argued that most mainstream horror films "are rooted in the same voyeuristic leanings which sell such freakish fetish videos"" - Relevance?

Home video

• This should probably be split into several sentences.

Film festivals

• "The film's release at the Toronto International Film Festival caused controversy including online" - Unclear. Controversy including online?

Reception

• [insert name here] said... - A bit repetitive. More variety, perhaps?

1b

• We should not start #Production with {{quote}}. {{Quote box}} is probably better.
• The section "Film references" is too short to warrant its own section. I'd suggest either developing it further or merging it with #Production

2

2a

• Compare current FN2 and FN13. Is Dread Central the publisher (and therefore normal text) or the work (and therefore italicised)? Might want to double check the other sources.
• Just a comment, you should standardise whether or not you link the publisher/work.
• What makes Dread Central a reliable source?

3

3a

• It never saw a theatrical release? Has that been mentioned anywhere? When were the film festivals held? When were the DVD and Blu-Ray released?
• A bit more about the works of the subjects
• Film references section should really be expanded.
• "Eric Rost's S&MAN video series" - A bit of context, for us who don't know anything about the series?
• The Complete S&Man – Episode 11 - Perhaps an explanation on what it is
• "Midnight Madness" - Which is?
• South by Southwest - which is held where?
• What kind of controversy occurred in Toronto?
• Apparently Time did a review here (I like the quote from another director: "JT, you sick fuck!"... shame its not in a more reliable source).

Spotchecks

• Based on this revision of the article.

• FN1

• FN1a: Verified, no close paraphrasing
• FN1b: Verified, no close paraphrasing
• FN1c: Verified, no close paraphrasing

• FN7

FN7a: Verified, quoted

FN7b: Verified, quoted

FN7c: Verified, no close paraphrasing

FN7d: Verified, acceptable paraphrasing

• FN13: Verified, no close paraphrasing

• FN18: Verified, no close paraphrasing

• Spotchecks are fine.

Further discussion

• Article on hold for completeness, references, and language Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• Note that I just left some comments on the peer review, mainly focused on prose. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I made a lot of changes. Can you take a look at them? SL93 (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• K, looking a little more complete. Before we worry about grammar, let's make sure the content will be fairly stable (i.e. we aren't expecting any more major additions):

• Summary: I've never watched the film, so I'm not sure, but I'd expect a bit more plot summary to be included. How the interviews are weaved in with the story etc. Don't be minimalist; if we haven't seen the film, it's easier to cut extraneous information than add pertinent stuff. See Sang Pencerah or ? for some of my GAs which may help.
• Remember to keep the flow logical. Why tell us the contents of the home releases first then the release date? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• Also the lede will need a bit of expansion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I expanded the lead a bit and added two paragraphs to the summary about how the interviews featured in the film. I watched most of the film, but couldn't get through it. SL93 (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    • This is getting much better, but for a GA we expect to have the climax of the film as well. If it's too disgusting to watch, perhaps find something about it online. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I added the main points of the ending from this source - http://www.offscreen.com/index.php/phile/essays/documenting_horror/. "Totaro received his PhD in Film & Television from the University of Warwick (UK) and is a part-time lecturer in Film Studies at Concordia University (Montreal, Canada). He has published on recent Asian cinema, the cinema of Andrei Tarkovsky, the horror genre and is currently preparing a manuscript entitled Time and the Long Take in Narrative Cinema." SL93 (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I'll give it a good copyedit after breakfast / after work, depending on how much time I have Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Alright. Thanks. SL93 (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've added a {{cn}} tag. Also, since Petty is a player in the film as well I think he should be in the cast section. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I referenced that to DVD Verdict and I will add Petty to the cast. SL93 (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Okay, I have to go to work now. I'll finish my copyedit when I get back (not anytime soon though) Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I was just wondering when you are going to copy edit the article. I'm fine with whenever you decide, I just want to be ready for any corrections I might still need to make. SL93 (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've finished and am pretty fine on prose (I'd suggest having Mark take another look at it, though). Just wondering why the Time review was not included... that's a fairly major magazine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I missed that. Sorry. SL93 (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I took care of the Time review. SL93 (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, I took another look at it, I think it's just about ready for promotion. A couple things I saw that I couldn't resolve via copyediting:
• "Petty suspects that Eric actually kills women for his snuff films, a suspicion further exasperated when Rost says that he will relay Petty's contact information to the women instead of giving their contact information to Petty." I assume you meant "exacerbated" rather than "exasperated"?
• "In the beginning of the film, clips show the directors and Clover commenting on a horror film that is not shown onscreen or mentioned." This sentence seems to contradict itself, if it's commented on then isn't it mentioned? Mark Arsten (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I meant that the title isn't mentioned. I will fix that. Crisco added exasperated, but I think that exacerbated is what he meant. SL93 (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I changed those two things. I hope that Crisco is fine with me changing the word. SL93 (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I have no problem with that... wow, this article has changed. I'll take a final look through after work. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, that looks acceptable to me. Passing Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)