Talk:Son of Frankenstein

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Andrzejbanas in topic Photographs?

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Son of Frankenstein/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 15:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I'll be assessing this article using the GA-criteria. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 15:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Basic stuff and comments

edit

@Andrzejbanas: Here's the first set of suggestions. Ping me when you're done or have added comments. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 16:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • I don't really like using genre sources from anonymously written sources where it is not clear that they viewer in question has seen the film. From what I've seen, the film is predominantly described in terms of the horror film. If I could find more specific sources from reviewers who have seen the film, i'd be happy to add it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Not sure what specific date you are asking for here, the source doesn't go into detail beyond its two year off period. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
I've tried to expand on that to make it more clear. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't feel this is too important, it's the only film this character appears in. It's not discussed in the article and the character is not really that important to the series. Feels a bit trivial. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't actually agree in this case, I feel it provides a proper summary of the general section of reviews as even today, this film either gets great or mixed reviews. The Rotten Tomatoes ranking is also a hybrid of contemporary and retrospective reviews (specifically a Harrison's Reports review and a Variety review for older reviews. So putting above both retrospective or contemporary reviews might be a bit misleading for readers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):  
    b (citations to reliable sources):  
    c (OR):  
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  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):  

Overall:
Pass/Fail:  

  ·   ·   ·  

Cast

edit

I put the cast for this movie over here, i got some sources for the cast from IMDB as well:

Cast sourced from the American Film Institute and the book Universal Horrors:[1][2][3]

2.50.190.75 (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

IMDB is not reliable, also the article already has a cast section. PrisonerB (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Note: some text copied from IMDb has been removed from the post above. DanCherek (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Photographs?

edit

Can't anyone, anywhere get some pictures from this film into wikimedia so that we can illustrate the article with some photographs? This is embarrassing. Racing Forward (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

What do you find is actually lacking or you want to illustrate? Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
  1. ^ Weaver, Brunas & Brunas 2007, p. 182.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference afi was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Weaver, Brunas & Brunas 2007, p. 183.