Talk:The Texas Chain Saw Massacre/GA1

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I removed a few more glaring errors, such as 1.) the tagline in bold at the top, 2.) "developer's hell" in the intro, and 3.) "interestingly" in some paragraph. There are far too many one- and two-sentence paragraphs; can't some of the info under the subheaders (concept, financing, props, etc.) be combined? Also, things like "All full list of accolades" can be found here. Furthermore, "allegedly" and "you couldn't control" in the "public reaction" section should be removed; this section also has a {{fact}}. Overall, the prose just seems choppy with too many subheaders where there shouldn't be any.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   I'm not too keen on using IMDb's trivia section as a source. Otherwise, the sources seem all right.

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:

   Phrases like "Sawyer family house has change completely" and "Fairly simple", "The completed film ultimately benefited from the decision, as many fans... blah blah blah" are pretty OR-ish; I'm sure I haven't bopped all the weasel words.

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):

   Image:Leatherfacenumber1.jpg seems to have a paltry fair use rationale. How about some screen captures from the flim too?

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'll give this one week for improvement.

• Okay, the improvements have made for a better article. I'll go ahead and promote it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)