Wikipedia

Talk:The Hills Have Eyes (1977 film)/GA1

< Talk:The Hills Have Eyes (1977 film)
Latest comment: 6 years ago by MagicatthemovieS in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago24 comments3 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs) 05:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This looks most of the way to passing already.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    It could use a bit of copy editing, but this is a pass. I fixed a few typos.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
    You're most of the way there. Per WP:SAID, however, you should avoid the use "<critic> noted something". Instead, you might say that the critic said something.
@NinjaRobotPirate: Fixed this problemMagicatthemovieS (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieSReply
  1. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    I'm pretty sure you don't have to do this, but it might be nice if the dates were unified to have the same format.
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:  
    C. It contains no original research:  
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    The reception seems a little small. Check out what I did with Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth#Reception. Some films, you simply can't have a really detailed reception. But is there room for expansion here?
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
  3. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
  4. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
  5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  6. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  

Comments from Gonnym

edit

Hey, since you asked me, I went over the article. Some of my notes might be more than GA requires, but I'll be writing them anyways.

  • Plot
    • The Carter family is traveling on vacation towing a travel trailer from Ohio to Los Angeles - is the fact they are towing a travel trailer important to the story?
    • their baby daughter Katy - whose daughter is this? Bob and Ethel's or Lynn and Doug?
    • and their dogs, Beauty and the Beast - whose dogs are these? Bob and Ethel's or Lynn and Doug? Also, is the second dog called "The Beast" or "Beast"? If it's just "Beast" it should be "Beauty and Beast".
    • If the above point's answer is "no" then consider revising those two sentences together to make a better flow. It's a bit off atm.
    • and Fred urges them - if you started with naming actors as they appear, you must continue.
    • Fred's truck suddenly explodes, preventing him from leaving. - did he want to leave? Why was it important to note that he can't leave?
    • Ignoring Fred's warning, the Carters skid off a desert road and crash - why did they ignore his warnings? Was it an accident or did they intentionally leave? I'm a bit unsure from what I've read.
    • Beauty then runs off into the hills, where she's slaughtered by someone. Bobby chases after her and finds her mutilated body. - is Beauty seen slaughtered before Bobby finds her? Or is she killed off-screen? If she's killed off screen then just remove that part.
    • They are commanded by Papa Jupiter (James Whitworth) who had killed his mother, Fred's wife, during childbirth - did Jupiter have any supernatural powers? How did he manage to kill someone? Or did his mother just die giving birth? Two different things.
    • They survive by stealing and cannibalizing travelers. - do they steal travelers? or steal from travelers? do they steal only food? or just steal anything? Consider revising.
    • Papa Jupiter suddenly crashes his hands through a window - consider revising. "Crashes his hands" doesn't sound correct.
    • Brenda finds Bobby, who is shaken up about Beauty and returns to the trailer - Did Bobby return alone to the trailer?
    • Later on he gets locked out of the trailer and asks Doug for his keys, but is unaware the trailer is locked because Pluto is looking through their valuables while Ethel and Brenda are asleep. - I feel like we missed something here.
    • Before Bobby enters the trailer, Pluto signals Papa Jupiter to set Bob on fire and an explosion is heard in the distance - same here. How did Pluto signal Jupiter?
    • Mars and Pluto return to the cave, but Beast pushes Mercury off a hilltop to his death - "the cave"? we've never heard of any cave until now. Also, "but beast" doesn't make sense as there isn't any contrast here. Also #2, Mercury? When did he show up?
    • Ruby is then chained outside the cave with Mama tormenting her, and is forced to eat Beauty as punishment for her betrayal. - What betrayal? Wasn't beauty killed and left for dead?
    • General note, some sentences feel fragmented.
  • Production:
    • Following his directorial debut, The Last House on the Left (1972) Wes Craven desired to make a non-horror film - I would switch this around - Wes Craven desired to make a non-horror film, following his directorial debut, The Last House on the Left (1972), but...
    • a horror children's film - this sounds strange to me, but this might be just me.
    • In writing the project for Locke, Craven decided he "wanted something more sophisticated than Last House on the Left. I didn't want to feel uncomfortable again about making a statement about human depravity." - first sentence of the quote is fine, second makes no sense grammatically. Craven [...] I didn't - either paraphrase not as a quote, or break the quote into 2 parts as in Craven decided he "wanted something more sophisticated than Last House on the Left." He said that he "felt uncomfortable again about making a statement about human depravity." but maybe just paraphrasing is cleaner here.
    • Crave ultimately opted for an ending where Doug - typo in name.
    • Craven also wanted the two families in the story to be the "mirror images of each other, so I could explore different sides of the human personality." - same issue with quote as before.
    • Actors auditioning for the role of Bobby were asked to cry. - ok, and?
    • The shoot was unpleasant for the actors, due to daytime temperatures of over 120 degrees and that dropped to around 30 degrees during the night - change to due to daytime temperatures of over 120 degrees which dropped ....
    • The filling station used in the film was an actual abandoned filling station - decide on terminology - you called this a "gas station" previously.
    • putting black matter on her teeth. - what is black matter? I'm assuming it isn't Dark matter.
    • To accommodate Berryman's birth defects, which make it impossible for him to sweat - "makes"
    • the sequence were Mars and Pluto attack the trailer - "where"
  • Analysis:
    • Slant Magazine's Ed Gonzales characterized the film as "morally inconsequential" as "At the end of... - "at", not "At".
  • Release
    • I don't quite like the "Marketing and box office" section for a few reasons. The first, mainly, as those 2 sections have nothing to do with each other. Split them into two different ones.
    • Release is missing the most important piece of information - the actual release date. (see Prometheus_(2012_film)#Release as reference for this section).
    • Anchor Bay would re-released the film four separate times in 2006, and 2013 - "re-release" but more importantly, it just doesn't make sense.
    • Henderson also deemed the film inferior to - the previous sentence was praise, so this a contrast and should be "however, he also...".
    • Jessica C. Coggins of The Harvard Crimson dismissed it as "mediocre". - there was a lot of things in the previous sentence that could be "it" - change to "Hills".
  • Legacy - change to "Cultural impact"
    • The first paragraph should be then called "Legacy".
    • Remove the "Franchise" section from "Cultural impact"
  • Franchise
    • Craven directed a sequel to the film, The Hills Have Eyes Part II (1985). - "Craven directed a sequel to the film, The Hills Have Eyes Part II, in 1985"
    • Craven made the film to turn The Hills Have Eyes into a franchise in the vein of the Halloween and Friday the 13th franchises - "He did this to turn..."
    • Craven and his son Jonathan wrote the sequel to the remake, The Hills Have Eyes 2 (2007). - "In 2007, Craven and..."
  • In popular culture
    • "took it to mean that Wes Craven...was saying Jaws was just pop horror. What I have here is real horror." - check source again, you did not quote the quotation marks correctly.
  • Section ordering: Per WP:MOSFILM, the "Analysis" section should come after "Cast". If you really don't want it after, then it should probably be after release, as it can't be in the middle between production and release.
  • Section ordering #2: "Home Media" should be after "Critical reception" - chronologically this is the order in which it happens.
  • Section ordering #3: "Franchise" should be before "Cultural impact".
  • Sources
    • Citations style should follow the same style per WP:CITESTYLE - look at two book references #14 and #15 - 15 is amazing. While 14 barely has any information (the rest is listed in a Bibliography section). #16 has no page info.
    • Some citations are not only not following your style of choosing, but are just also pretty bad. Source #4 is referenced to the entire doc. Note that Template:Cite AV media has a time field for that - it's hard to verify if you don't say when that happens. It also doesn't use any template unlike the others.
  • An Accolades section is missing. While I know that it didn't get really top-level wins or nominations it did get 2. Nominated for Saturn Award for Best DVD or Blu-ray Special Edition Release at the 43rd Saturn Awards and the Critic’s award at the 1977 Sitges Film Festival.
  • Lead
    • It is about the Carters, a suburban family - "The film follows the Carters..."
    • The cannibals kill the family's patriarch, Big Bob, rape his daughter, Brenda, and kidnap the family's youngest member, baby Katy, intending to eat her. In order to protect themselves, the Carters become increasingly violent, and the film culminates with Doug Carter stabbing one of the cannibals to death before the screen fades to red. - I'm a believer in no spoilers in the lead. Tell the premise of the story, which is the first sentence, but there is no point in ruining the film here - it doesn't add anything of value to the lead.
    • Missing from the lead - home media release, soundtrack release, awards, more cult and franchise information. Basically, summarise each section you wrote, then add it to the lead and flesh it out.
  • Others
    • Images are missing alt information.
    • Images are claiming facts but don't have a source to back it up.
    • The infobox has data that isn't written anywhere else in the article. Production company (Blood Relations Co), Distributor (Vanguard and Monarch Releasing Corporation), Cinematography (Eric Saarinen) - all of which should be in the lead and in the relevant sections (remember, lead is just a summary).
    • Editor is mentioned in the lead and infobox but not in article itself.
  • Infobox

Good luck. --Gonnym (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, the GA criteria are very lenient. That's one reason why I sometimes dislike doing GA reviews. Lots of stuff gets a pass that might not be allowed in a B-class article. @Gonnym: where are you getting the awards from? Is that from the IMDb? That should be included if it's for real (ie, not just a claim from some random person on the IMDb). The images are sourced in the prose, but one could explicitly add citations for it. Alt text would be good, but I don't think the GA criteria require it. I agree the lead is short. While trying to avoid imposing my own personal feelings, maybe I'm being too lenient on that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Agree with the GA criteria, I don't usually do these, but since I was asked I do it my way. I got the awards info from IMDB, but they are both showing up in the articles in Wikipedia as well. Wes Craven has a source for his award, while the 43rd Saturn Awards shows the other. I'm sure there are sources around for it if there isn't on that page. I know the images are sourced in the article, which is why there is no reason not to add that same source to the image. This will stop data rot if someone decides to change a word here. --Gonnym (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
@NinjaRobotPirate:@Gonnym: To address both of your concerns, I lengthened the lede, and I lengthened the "Critical reception" section. How many more reviews, if any, do you think I need to add to that section before it is satisfactory?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieSReply
I had no issue with Critical Reception, but I didn't want a "longer" lead, I wanted a lead that summarized the article. I've noted what parts I saw are lacking from the lead. --Gonnym (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
There isn't really a set number of reviews that makes something "broad in coverage". Some exploitation films never really acquire a lot of reviews. What I like to do is check WP:FILM/R to see if I missed any obviously prominent sites that might have posted a review. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
@NinjaRobotPirate:@Gonnym: I've added all the reviews I could find from the sources mentioned at WP:FILM/R & addressed every criticism brought up by Gonnym except:
  • I'm OK with the phrase "horror children's film" and don't want to change it
  • The doc on the film doesn't elaborate on Houston being asked to cry so I can't elaborate
  • I don't think citing the doc he way I did disqualifies this article for GA status
    • Well I'm going to challenge the doc. As it can't be verifiable. I'm not going to watch a full film in hopes of catching the word you said appears there. --Gonnym (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • @NinjaRobotPirate:@Gonnym:The doc is 43 minutes and can be found on YouTube. It is verifiable, it simply needs to be viewed. The books simply lacks page numbers - there's no other way to put it. Also, can someone find me this link for the Saturn Awards? I'm not sure that award is worth mentioning in the article, as it was awarded to a DVD transfer of the fil for being great, not to the film itself.MagicatthemovieS (talk)MagicatthemovieS
      • That's not how verification works. Also, I really doubt a book does not have numbers. Do you have a copy or were you using snippets from google books? Regarding the award, any award which is notable enough to be on wikipedia should not even be a question if it should be added to an article. Cross-references is what makes a good encyclopedia. --Gonnym (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • I can't add page numbers for books which lack page numbers
  • I can't find the link for the Saturn Awards

If it's not too much to ask, would one of you be so kind as to solve the last issue?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieSReply

  • Books that lack page numbers are a pain. The GA criteria require the content to be verifiable, not for citations to be formatted in a specific way. See WP:GANOT. Do what you can, and make use of what's available. I like using {{cite book}} and the at= parameter. This allows me to give enough information that people can find what I'm citing. For example: {{cite book|title=My Title|last=Lastname|first=Firstname|publisher=My Publisher Co.|year=2018|page=<!-- no page listed -->|chapter=Chapter Title Here|at=Paragraph 10}} NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Since this dispute is now going into the article itself, and Gonnym has refused to stop arguing here, I'm failing this review. I don't want to deal with Gonnym's drama. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Hills_Have_Eyes_(1977_film)/GA1&oldid=862812144"