Talk:Terror Train/GA1
GA Review
editThe following discussion 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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: MagicatthemovieS (talk · contribs) 07:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 11:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
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. |
Prose is well-written | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
Complies with MoS standards for plots, leads, and layout | |
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Otherwise, Refs are in a proper 'References' section with a works cited 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). |
Sources, mostly online articles or book excerpts, are reliable | |
2c. it contains no original research. | I trust that there's no OR based on the various sources I randomly checked- all good here | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | addresses everything a film article should | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
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. | All images correctly CC or fair use tagged | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Captions relevant and captioned properly | |
7. Overall assessment. |
- MagicatthemovieS, there's some work to be done, but it'll all result in an even better article than it is now! Let me know if you have any questions- I'll finish the review once the above points are addressed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- @MyCatIsAChonk: I would prefer to keep the long list of cross-dressing films to emphasize how common the trope is and the long list of 1980-1981 slasher films to emphasize how statured the market was if that's alright with you.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- Fair enough then MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- I credit Grodnik and Greenberg, but only the latter is listed as a producer in the film's credits. I don't know how/if our article should reflect that.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- Nevermind, you are correct- the infobox parameters say otherwise. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think I got rid of a lot (but not all) of the quotations in the Reception and Themes sections. Let me know if that's sufficient or if I need to get rid of more quotes. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also, is FilmAffinity a good source? MagicatthemovieS (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Do you know of another place where I can find Grove 2015 with page numbers because Anna's Archive doesn't seem to work for me? MagicatthemovieS (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- For quotes: better, but the second para of "retrospective" is a giant blockquote, and the main ideas could be wrapped in the previous para
- FilmAffinity: based on what I can find on their website, it seems much more like a review site and not a news source. Because the movie listings lack authors and dates, I wouldn't be too confident
- Grove: well, Anna's isn't working for me either... forget the comment, I'll strike it through. Google Books' distinct lack of page numbers is rather frustrating and if there's no easy alternative then so be it. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I replaced iHorror with Grove 2015 because the iHorror source was just an excerpt from Grove. I also removed the large quote from the Reception section. All that's left is awards, I believe. IMDB mentions these awards; do you think they are worth mentioning in the article https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081617/awards/ MagicatthemovieS (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- Wikipedia's guideline is to include all awards that have a Wikipedia article. With that in mind, the Saturn Awards and Genie Awards should be listed- because there's so few, a table likel'y isn't needed, and you could easily make a small para about it. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Done?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- Two questions: Can we put this film under the category of "Transphobia?" Our sources only say it could be interpreted as transphobic, not that it is. Secondly, I put it under the category "Tubi original programming." Should I add other categories that only apply to the remake and its sequel, like "Horror film remakes" and "Canadian sequel films?"MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- Putting it under the transphobia category would require widespread belief among many writers, and it only seems like a couple support that idea. I'd exclude it. I'm not sure about the other categories- if there's a redirect it may only apply there, but idk if redirects go into categories. May have to consult someone else for this one. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to say this thi is complete- excellent work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Putting it under the transphobia category would require widespread belief among many writers, and it only seems like a couple support that idea. I'd exclude it. I'm not sure about the other categories- if there's a redirect it may only apply there, but idk if redirects go into categories. May have to consult someone else for this one. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Two questions: Can we put this film under the category of "Transphobia?" Our sources only say it could be interpreted as transphobic, not that it is. Secondly, I put it under the category "Tubi original programming." Should I add other categories that only apply to the remake and its sequel, like "Horror film remakes" and "Canadian sequel films?"MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- Done?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- Wikipedia's guideline is to include all awards that have a Wikipedia article. With that in mind, the Saturn Awards and Genie Awards should be listed- because there's so few, a table likel'y isn't needed, and you could easily make a small para about it. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I replaced iHorror with Grove 2015 because the iHorror source was just an excerpt from Grove. I also removed the large quote from the Reception section. All that's left is awards, I believe. IMDB mentions these awards; do you think they are worth mentioning in the article https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081617/awards/ MagicatthemovieS (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- Do you know of another place where I can find Grove 2015 with page numbers because Anna's Archive doesn't seem to work for me? MagicatthemovieS (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also, is FilmAffinity a good source? MagicatthemovieS (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think I got rid of a lot (but not all) of the quotations in the Reception and Themes sections. Let me know if that's sufficient or if I need to get rid of more quotes. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Nevermind, you are correct- the infobox parameters say otherwise. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I credit Grodnik and Greenberg, but only the latter is listed as a producer in the film's credits. I don't know how/if our article should reflect that.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- Fair enough then MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)