Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hellraiser: Judgment/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11 November 2019 [1].

Hellraiser: Judgment

Nominator(s): Dark Knight 2149 02:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2018 horror film written and directed by Gary J. Tunnicliffe; the tenth film in the Hellraiser media franchise. This is my first FA nomination, so I apologise if I did something wrong during the nomination. I have checked the criteria, and going from that, I believe this meets FA standards. However, I do understand that those standards are quite high while nominating this. The article was previously FA mentored by Masem. Dark Knight 2149 02:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

Resolved comments

The references in the infobox should not be necessary as all of that information should be cited in the body of the article.

Done. Dark Knight 2149 02:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid using graphics as they are discouraged by the FAC instructions since they can "slow down the page load time". Aoba47 (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I wish I noticed this comment a little sooner. Dark Knight 2149 03:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason for the citation in the lead's first sentence? I have seen some editors to do it because film genre can be somewhat contentious and they use a citation to support that information, but I just wanted to make sure.

Done, Removed. It was leftover from the article's early days; originally intended to be a source for the exact ordering of the cast members in the lead before the official billing came out. Dark Knight 2149 02:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend adding some form of ALT text to the infobox image as you have done for the images in the body of the article.

Done. Dark Knight 2149 03:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For this sentence (It is the tenth installment in the Hellraiser film series created by Clive Barker, written and directed by the series' longtime FX artist Gary J. Tunnicliffe.), I would replace the "comma" after "Barker" with an "and" instead.

Done. Dark Knight 2149 03:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For this sentence (Newcomer Paul T. Taylor was cast after impressing Tunnicliffe in an audition for another character, and auditioned again for Pinhead.), I would avoid repeating "audition"/"auditioned" as it is a little repetitious.

Done. Reworded. Dark Knight 2149 03:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncertain of the usefulness of the "Chatter" wikilink. It is a redirect that I do not find particularly helpful for someone unfamiliar with the character. I would remove it altogether because the character is already described in this article enough to help an unfamiliar reader.

Done. Used to be an article. Dark Knight 2149 03:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reasons as above, I do not find the "Cenobites" wikilink to be particularly useful and I would remove it.

Done, ditto. Dark Knight 2149 03:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has never seen any of these films, I cannot speak to the accuracy of the plot section so I will just be pointing out prose suggestions.
I have a question for this part: "who went missing near the abandoned house at 55 Ludovico Place.". The "the" in "the abandoned house" makes it sound like it is the only abandoned house in that area and is notable for that reason. If that is not true, then I would use "an abandoned house" instead.

Comment: 55 Ludovico Place refers to that house specifically. Dark Knight 2149 03:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I read over the house numbers so that was my fault. Aoba47 (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused on why "Christine Egerton" is referred to by her last name while "Sean and David Carter" are referred to by their first names. For the sake of consistency, I would refer to characters by their first names after their first mentions.

Done. Because they have the same surname. Edited for consistency, though. Dark Knight 2149 03:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few comments for this sentence (Upon arrival, Sean disarms David and summons his wife, Alison (Rheagan Wallace), outraged that she had a secret affair). I think you can just say "an affair" as affairs are normally kept secret. I am also a little confused by the "summons" phrasing. This is a more supernatural film so when I first read this, I thought she was like a ghost or something that was being summoned. Again, I have never seen this film before, so I was wondering if you could clarify how Alison's character is brought into the plot a little more for an unfamiliar reader like myself.

Done. Perhaps "summons" was too formal. Changed to "Upon arrival, Sean disarms David and reveals that he is holding his wife Alison (Rheagan Wallace) hostage, outraged that she had an affair." Dark Knight 2149 03:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about this part (outraged that she had a secret affair. He forces the two of them to open the box at gunpoint). From my understanding, the people present in this scene are Sean, David, Alison, and Christine. Who are "the two of them" being referenced here? I am assuming it is some combination of David, Alison, and Christine, but it is not immediately clear to me.

Christine was unconscious as a result of being incapacitated. Changed to "David and Alison" instead of "Two of them". Dark Knight 2149 03:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused by this part (Pinhead tells him that they will be dealt with for opening the box). Alison and David were clearly forced to open the box by Sean and did not do it willingly. Does the film address this at all?

Comment: The Cenobites tend to kidnap anyone who opens the box. In some of the earlier films and comics, it's established that the box cannot be opened (because of its supernatural nature) unless some part of you truly desires it. However, the franchise is inconsistent on that.

After Hellraiser 1-4, continuity became iffy and the films are now mostly standalones that loosely connect to each other. Even the Cenobites have gone from being neutral sadomasochists from Hell, to evil Freddy Krueger-esque slasher villains, to demon overlords that judge sinners, and now back to being sadomasochists from Hell (with another faction of Hell introduced to retcon the "judging" stuff). Dark Knight 2149 04:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I had assumed, but I just wanted clarification. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk)

If "police detective" is going to be linked, then it should be moved up to the first instance in the article, which should be here: ". On Earth, three detectives – brothers Sean and David Carter (Randy Wayne) and Christine Egerton – investigate a serial killer known as the Preceptor, whose murders are based on the Ten Commandments."

Done. Dark Knight 2149 04:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For this part, "The Auditor's typewriter paper is made of flesh and inked in blood; he often carries a music box, its song a comforting remnant of his human past", I would directly name the song rather than hiding it in the "song" wikilink. It seems too much like an Easter egg for my liking.

Done. Dark Knight 2149 04:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence "Gulager directed several horror films, including the Feast series and Piranha 3DD." needs a citation.

Reworded to sounded less WP:SYNy. I'll add a citation shortly. Dark Knight 2149 04:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dark Knight 2149 16:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see no benefit to wikilinking "nineties" in this part: "Tunnicliffe conceived the Cleaners as in their nineties". The same comment applies to "twenties" in this part: "three nude women in their twenties".

Done. Dark Knight 2149 04:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jophiel is wikilinked more than once in the body of the article. Wikilinks should only be used once and on the first instance the word(s) appear in the body of the article. The same comment applies to "heaven".

Done. Dark Knight 2149 13:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For this sentence "Decades before the development of Hellraiser: Judgment, Dimension Films obtained the rights to the Hellraiser and Children of the Corn film series", *I would add the wikilink to the article on the Hellraiser series. I do not believe it was linked before this part unless I am mistaken.

Done. Dark Knight 2149 13:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the value of the wikilink for "the Female Cenobite".

Done. Dark Knight 2149 13:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would add a citation to this "and scenes involving the Cleaners" to clarify what reference is being used to support this information.

Comment: To clarify, it's backed by the same Bloody-Disgusting citation as the following sentence. Hence why there's no intermediate citation. Dark Knight 2149 13:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few wikilinks that I feel are unnecessary because they are common knowledge. I do not see a reason why "dialogue", "bracelet", "suit", and "cast" are linked because I think a majority of readers would know these concepts. I am not saying that they need to be removed altogether, but I wanted to raise this to your attention.

Removed several of them. Dark Knight 2149 15:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For this quote "I have a reliable source who just informed me that Hellraiser: Judgment has been on a shelf for a while, unfinished. But now that Harvey Weinstein is out of the picture, Hellraiser: Judgment has been taken off that shelf and is back in post-production.", remove the link to "out of the picture". You already have the sexual allegations linked in the next sentence, and linking that to "out of the picture" borders too much again on an Easter egg for my liking.

Done. Dark Knight 2149 15:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For this part "Brad Miska of Bloody Disgusting called it "the most authentic Hellraiser since Bloodline (1996)", I would not include the year as part of the wikilink.

Done, linked in an earlier section. Removed from the Brad Miska sentence. Dark Knight 2149 15:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Dread Central" is wikilinked multiple times in the article.

Done. Bloody-Disgusting and Dread Central should only be linked once now. Let me know if I missed any. Dark Knight 2149 15:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the need for the wikilink for "Butterball Cenobite".

Done. Dark Knight 2149 13:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For this sentence (In May 2019 it was reported by Variety that a Hellraiser reboot is in the works at Spyglass Media Group with David S. Goyer serving as writer and producer.), there should be a comma after "In May 2019".

Done. Dark Knight 2149 15:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have another comment about that sentence. It is typically discouraged to have a single sentence paragraph so I would see if there is a way to incorporate that information into the previous paragraph.

I expanded it a bit, if that's alright. Dark Knight 2149 15:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review helps somewhat. This is a rather long article so I will have to read through it a few times to do a thorough review and make sure that I catch everything. Once my above comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to look through the article again to see if there is anything else. I am not familiar with this franchise at all so apologies if I am missing anything super obvious. Good luck with the FAC. I know it can be an intimidating process at first, but hopefully, you will get a lot of helpful feedback. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed/fixed the concerns raised. I appreciate you taking time for this review. Please let me know if some of the changes aren't satisfactory. Dark Knight 2149 16:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would arrange the references in numeric order. I have always been told to do this in past FAC reviews, but it is not necessarily required for a FA. I just thought this point was worth raising.

What's numeric order, if you don't mind me asking? I'm only aware of citations being listed in the order they appear in the article. Dark Knight 2149 20:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been told in the past to put the references in a numeric order; for instance, in the sentence "Occasionally, its victims are deemed more suited to the Cenobites.", the references are currently in this order, "11, 13, 2, and 5". I have been told in the past to them in a numeric order, but it was brought to my attention recently that it is not a requirement. However, I just wanted to point that out to you. Aoba47 (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The actress who plays Christine should be mentioned after the first time you mention her in the "Plot" section. Same goes for Pinhead and Jophiel.

Done. Dark Knight 2149 20:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Lament Configuration wikilink is a redirect. I would remove it as it is not particularly insightful/useful for an unfamiliar reader.

Done. Dark Knight 2149 20:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth is wikilinked multiple times in the body of the article.

Done. Dark Knight 2149 20:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a set structure for the "Critical response" section? It is generally encouraged that this type of section has some type of organization. I would recommend looking at this source to see what I am referring to.

Done. Dark Knight 2149 20:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "cast" wikilink should be moved up to the first time "cast" is used in the body of the article.

In this section, casting refers to the manufacturing process rather than the hiring of actors. Dark Knight 2149 20:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This should be my final set of comments. Once everything is address, I will be more than happy to support this. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any input for my current FAC. It is a complete 180 from this in terms of topic, but any feedback would helpful. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a look at it when I get the chance. Dark Knight 2149 20:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support the article for promotion based on the prose. Thank you for addressing everything. Aoba47 (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from theJoebro64

I come to this as a Hellraiser neophyte, so this article looks quite interesting. I'm going to post some comments in the coming days. JOE BRO 64 19:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here comes my first round:

I'm not sure if I'm really a fan of how the lede is structured. It goes immediately into production information for a couple sentences before out of nowhere switching to plot information, which I find sort of jarring. The second paragraph has the same issue. I'd propose changing it to resemble the structure of the article more. Here's how the first paragraph would look.

Hellraiser: Judgment is a 2018 American horror film starring Damon Carney, Randy Wayne, Alexandra Harris, Heather Langenkamp, and Paul T. Taylor as Pinhead. It is the tenth installment in the Hellraiser film series created by Clive Barker and written and directed by the series' longtime FX artist Gary J. Tunnicliffe. The plot centers on three police detectives who, investigating a series of murders, are confronted by the denizens of hell. The film expands the fictional universe by introducing a new faction of hell, the Stygian Inquisition, who are distinct from the recurring Cenobites. The Cenobites offer sadomasochistic pleasures to humans who enter their dominion, while the Inquisition processes the souls of sinners. Tunnicliffe plays the Inquisition's auditor, a prominent role in the film.

Then you could solely dedicated the next two paragraphs to production, and the last to release and reception. I feel like this will flow more naturally, and is in line with other film-related FAs.

How's this? Dark Knight 2149 03:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"... starring Damon Carney, Randy Wayne, Alexandra Harris, Heather Langenkamp, and Paul T. Taylor as Pinhead." They all play Pinhead? Be careful of grammatical ambiguity like this.

That's how the official billing block reads. Dark Knight 2149 03:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but we don't necessarily need to follow the billing religiously. I still think it's distracting and could be changed in some way. JOE BRO 64 16:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dark Knight 2149 17:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd change "FX artist" to "special make-up effects artist", as "FX" strikes me as film jargon and could be confused with things like the FX channel.

Done. Dark Knight 2149 03:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does "hell" need to be linked? IMO anyone with a brain can figure out that you're referring to the netherworld.

Done. Dark Knight 2149 03:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your clauses can easily be excised without losing clarity or meaning. For instance: "... giving Tunnicliffe a chance to propose his vision ~~to the studio~~." and "Tunnicliffe plays the Inquisition's auditor, a prominent role ~~in the film~~."

Done. Dark Knight 2149 15:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"... involving parent company..." WP:EASTEREGG

Done. Dark Knight 2149 15:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. JOE BRO 64 20:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkknight2149: please forgive me, I completely forgot about this... will get to more this week. Been a bit busy. JOE BRO 64 22:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: Understandable. Dark Knight 2149 23:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I have to say about the plot:

There was a big RFC a few months ago (I'll try to find the link) about including actors in parentheses in the plot summary, and the consensus was that it's redundant if there's a "Cast" section below.

Done. Dark Knight 2149 05:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some things need a bit of explaining. For instance, what's a Centobite?

Changed to In hell, Pinhead, of the Cenobite faction, and the Auditor of the Stygian Inquisition.... The Cast and characters section goes into further detail. Dark Knight 2149 05:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"... near ~~the~~ an abandoned house ~~at 55 Ludovico Place~~." Do we really need to know the address?

Done. Dark Knight 2149 05:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking good. Will start cast by Saturday. JOE BRO 64 23:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well it ain't Saturday but here we go again:

I'd format the cast section using line breaks and colons, sort of like how it's done with newer films (for instance, Joker (2019 film), an article I have worked substantially on). For example, it'd read better like:
- Damon Carney as Detective Sean Carter / The Preceptor:[2]
  A police detective who investigates a string of murders...

Got it. Dark Knight 2149 21:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The director was pleased that Langenkamp agreed to take part in the film, since she is regularly offered horror-film roles. Which director? I'm assuming Tunnicliffe, but you've just mentioned Freihofer too.

Tunnicliffe. Changed to "he", since Tunnicliffe is mentioned at the end of the preceding sentence. Dark Knight 2149 08:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... unlike the most-recent sequels... → "... unlike the more recent sequels..."

Done. Dark Knight 2149 08:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Time and budget contributed to Tunnicliffe's playing the character..."

Done. Dark Knight 2149 08:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ref at the end of the Chatterer's point—do the page numbers need to be separate from the citation? My understanding is that they can be separate if you're not just citing one specific section, but since this appears to be the only time the book is referenced I think they should be in the citation itself.

Got it. Dark Knight 2149 08:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Diane Goldner plays a Cleaner:, ..."

JOE BRO 64 21:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dark Knight 2149 08:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And development:

Link to Gary J. Tunnicliffe at first mention

Got it. Dark Knight 2149 08:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"... Gary Tunnicliffe [...] pitched a Hellraiser story, ~~entitled~~ Holy War, to Dimension..."

Got it. Dark Knight 2149 08:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... but could not direct it due to an FX scheduling conflict with Scream 4. Do you need the "FX" here? I already mentioned that it's sorta jargon-y, and we've already established that he's an FX artist as well.

Got it. Dark Knight 2149 08:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"... more traditional Hellraiser film, ~~entitled~~ Enter Darkness', to demonstrate..."

Done. Dark Knight 2149 08:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JOE BRO 64 22:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: Reminder. Dark Knight 2149 03:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. I've just made a minor edit to the cast section; will get to more of production later today. Thanks for reminding me. JOE BRO 64 11:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any comments about the original treatment section, but I do want to ask it it's possible to integrate it into the main development section. You don't need to if you disagree.
The preparation included smoking (unusual for the actor)—"the actor" can just be replaced by "Taylor"

Done. Dark Knight 2149 00:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Filming of Hellraiser: Judgment took place..."

Done. Dark Knight 2149 00:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judgment actor John Gulager directed the latter. "The latter" is unclear; I'd just say Runaway.

Done. Dark Knight 2149 00:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... and a "piss" yellow applied... I know Wikipedia isn't censored, but I don't think "piss" adds anything to the statement. Everyone knows that pee is yellow.

The statement refers to the specific shade. Dark Knight 2149 00:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you integrate the budget number in here? I think it'd flow well if you wrote in the first sentence: "Filming took place over a three-week period in Oklahoma, on a relatively small budget of $350,000."

Done. Dark Knight 2149 19:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Paul T. Taylor's portrayal of Pinhead was intended to be leaner and more serious than previous incarnations ~~of the character~~..."

Done. Dark Knight 2149 19:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"... a homage to the Eye of Agamotto symbolism from the Doctor Strange comic books was integrated into the costume." I think you need to clarify you're talking about the comics, as I thought you were referring to the movie before I checked the link.

From what I can tell, he meant Doctor Strange in general. Changed to "the Doctor Strange lore". Dark Knight 2149 19:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason you keep calling Taylor by his full name? From what I can tell he's the only guy named Taylor.

Done. Dark Knight 2149 19:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, we're done with the meat. Release, reception, and future shouldn't take too long. JOE BRO 64 01:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments:

... aside from the promo images... "promo" is too jargon-y, change to "promotional"
Again with Taylor's full name

Done. Dark Knight 2149 19:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"... date were ~~made public~~ released on January 9, 2018."
The two generalized statements ("Hellraiser: Judgment was compared favorably..." and "Some reviewers...") should have refs after them, since they could be challenged.
Italicize IGN, and link to Birth.Movies.Death.
My only other comment for reception is that it seems to lean a smidge too much on direct quotes that could easily be paraphrased. I've noticed there are a good number of quotes throughout the article as well; while it's not a huge issue, you may want to paraphrase/reduce some of them to avoid copyvio.
Again with Taylor's full name in the future section
"In May 2019, ~~it was reported by~~ Variety reported that ~~a reboot is being discussed at~~ Spyglass Media Group is planning a Hellraiser reboot..."

Sorry I took far too long on this, but address these and you've got my support. Great work. JOE BRO 64 01:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria

Image review

Don't use fixed px size

File:Hellraiser_Judgment_home_video_art.jpg: FUR is incomplete. Same with File:Hellraiser_Judgment_blue.jpg, File:Hellraiser_Judgment_yellow.jpg. Given the number of non-free images in the article these should be not only complete but also stronger. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed. Dark Knight 2149 20:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to see stronger FURs for the second and third images. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I'm afraid I'm not understanding the issue. Could you please explain what about the FUR doesn't hold up to standard? Dark Knight 2149 02:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment both say that they demonstrate the film's use of colour. What is the significance of this? Why is it not sufficient to just say that? What additional benefit does a reader gain by having these images? These are the sorts of questions I'd like to see answered in a strong FUR in the case that an article contains several non-free works. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: The FUR has been elaborated upon, per request. Dark Knight 2149 00:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

"As stated by writer/director Gary J. Tunnicliffe" - where was this stated?

In the source for the budget in the article. Dark Knight 2149 19:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Er, which one? This is the only footnote for the budget number in the infobox, and several sources cited in the body text could potentially be construed as "the source for the budget in the article". This needs clarification. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-added to the infobox. Hopefully that's okay with Aoba47, since they asked me to remove it. Dark Knight 2149 03:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine by me. Aoba47 (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the details in the infobox aren't cited anywhere - eg the credit to Griffin

On the official billing for the film, per the note. Nothing in the infobox isn't cited in the article or in the film's billing. Dark Knight 2149 19:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inline comments that aren't visible to users shouldn't be used to replace proper citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Dark Knight 2149 03:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had requested that the references should be removed from the infobox so apologies for that. I think all of the information in the infobox should be present in the article's prose and sourced there. I just wanted to clarify that. Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest reducing reliance on Tunnicliffe as per WP:PSTS.

Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: The issue with this one is that, despite this being an installment in a major horror franchise covered by third party sources, the studio refused to market the film. The movie was greenlit as a rights retention project and was completely shelved at one point because of the infamous Weinstein situation. For the vast majority of the production, it was complete radio silence from the studio (much to the chagrin of entertainment sites and horror fans). It was put back into post-production after Dimension Films was running low on cash, and even then, it didn't get much press from the studio itself. This is why most of the scoops came from the cast and director.

I was very careful in wording the article. Any information that came from Tunnicliffe is often worded as "According to Tunnicliffe" or in a way that people know who this is coming from. Anything opinion-related or subjective is relegated to quotes. I was also very picky about not stating things as absolute fact wherever applicable. This film didn't receive the marketing that you would expect from a studio production. Dark Knight 2149 00:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that there might not be the depth of sourcing available; however, I would still prefer to see less of Tunnicliffe. For example, "Disliking some of the script's fantastical elements, Carney approached the role from a grounded perspective" is Tunnicliffe's interpretation of Carney's viewpoint, and is not framed in the way you suggest. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed as much as I could without cutting out important information. Dark Knight 2149 03:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're currently not consistent in how you format references to Two Hours in the Dark

Done. Dark Knight 2149 00:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many of your refs have a date provided at the source but not included in the citation - eg. FN1, 3, 4...

Done. Dark Knight 2149 16:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FN6 should not include website in the title parameter

Done. Dark Knight 2149 01:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Bloody Disgusting linked in FN8 but not FN1? Should be consistent - either link first time only, every time, or never

Done. Dark Knight 2149 01:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What makes 1428 Elm a high-quality reliable source? Halloweenlove? Morbidly Beautiful? Clive Barker Cast? Joblo? Open the Trunk? Birth.Movies.Death (which you've represented as Birth.Death.Movies)? Flickering Myth?

The Halloweenlove article was written by a professional reporter who frequently works for Bloody-Disgusting. Likewise, the editor of BD John Squires (who has done work for a number of reliable sources) is a contributor as well, and the source was used specifically for a direct quote from the filmmakers. FanSided (aka 1428 Elm) is a direct interview with the actor. So is Morbidly Beautiful and Open the Trunk. Clive Barker Podcast is definitely reliable for interviews, especially audio interviews. They have done a number of video, audio, and written interviews with Clive Barker and various filmmakers related to Barker. However, I don't think the podcast is reliable for scoops or general news. JoBlo.com is a reputable news site. A section at WP:RSN on Flickering Myth has been opened in the past with no objections, and it is used as a source on quite a few Wikipedia articles. The Birth.Movies.Death review is counted by Rotten Tomatoes (which only acknowledges professional reviewers). Dark Knight 2149 02:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is an interview, doesn't make it a high-quality reliable source. Still also concerned about Flickering Myth and Birth.Movies.Death - need more information on why these should be considered reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Birth.Movies.Death review should be reliable enough for the critical response section, as per Rotten Tomatoes [2] and Variety. I went ahead and removed the Flickering Myth source, since the 2017 release date is also stated in the following Dread Central source and it's easier than waiting on a second WP:RSN that nobody is going to respond to. There probably should be a deeper discussion as to the reliability of Flickering Myth, since quite a few Wikipedia articles are using it as a source. Dark Knight 2149 20:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about the other interview sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ping. Again, I appreciate that there are relatively few reliable secondary sources, but unfortunately that's sometimes the way the cookie crumbles. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Morbidly Beautiful is quite prolific when it comes to interviews, some of which have been cited on other Wikipedia articles, and some of the reporters there have done work for higher profile reliable third party sources such as Dread Central and Screen Rant. FanSided ought to be a reliable interview source, as I do recall them receiving a number of scoops, such as for the TV series Gotham (example). The OpenTheTrunk interview was also covered by reliable third party sources, [3] [4], [5]. Dark Knight 2149 06:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting scoops isn't in itself a marker of reliability though. Take a look at this resource. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: FanSided is a professional news site that has partnered with other publications (such as Sports Illustrated) in the past. I'm open to an WP:RSN if you're not convinced that it's a credible interview source. Dark Knight 2149 15:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube is a platform, not a work

YouTube is the site and platform it is posted on, hence why it is listed in the "Website" parameter. The content creator/uploader is listed in "Publisher". I don't see the problem. Dark Knight 2149 01:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That logic doesn't make sense in the context of YouTube videos. The uploader is the author - in the case that someone is being interviewed, it should be cited as an interview instead of shoehorning them into the author parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should I list the uploader as "author" and "YouTube" as the website and publisher? Is this an improvement? I don't believe we can list the uploader under "Website" because they aren't a website. Dark Knight 2149 02:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are authors, but as they are usernames they shouldn't be inverted as with a typical author name. Regarding placement, see the documentation for {{cite web}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The video interviews are replaced with "Cite interview" template. Dark Knight 2149 21:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FN16: website doesn't match source

Done. Dark Knight 2149 02:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fn22 and 24 are to the same source but are not formatted the same

Reformatted. The title capitalisation is different because the source itself did it differently. I can update the capitalisation on one of them, if you want. Dark Knight 2149 03:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FN47 is badly formatted

Tweaked. Dark Knight 2149 03:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this is now 46, still needs improvement. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. If this one doesn't work, I'm open to suggestions. Dark Knight 2149 02:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just take out |publisher=. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dark Knight 2149 06:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FN48 author formatting doesn't match other refs

Done. Dark Knight 2149 03:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FN58: work link should be piped.

Fixed. Dark Knight 2149 03:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pending cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my oppose at this time, but would be interested in seeing opinions from other reviewers specifically on the PSTS issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough suggestions in helping to improve the article. Dark Knight 2149 22:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

Reading through now....

Some formatting inconsistencies - the Cast and characters section is a bulleted list....until it isn't, which looks odd. Also - the Development and Casting sections have quotes that are formatted differently. I'd pick one style and go with it - no strong opinion on this but I slightly prefer the one in Casting.

The bulleted list refers to primary actors, while the final paragraph is a summarisation of the more minor cast members (or characters with less information) that appear in the film. This is a pretty common format in film articles. Dark Knight 2149 07:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~The makeup-effects team was led by Mike Regan and Mike Measimer[, who helped bring to life Pinhead, Chatterer, the Stitch Twins, the Butcher, the Surgeon, and the Auditor]~~ ~~- I would have thought that was obvious. I'd remove the bracket bit as obvious, redundant and a bit puffy.~~

Done. Dark Knight 2149 21:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Paul T. Taylor's portrayal of Pinhead was intended to be leaner, meaner and more no-nonsense than previous incarnations of the character, lacking the earlier films' glib one-liners.~~ ~~- err, "more serious"? - does "leaner" mean "thinner"? This comes over as jargony.~~

Does "leaner and more serious" work? Dark Knight 2149 21:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yep Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

, "we've decided to stay tight-lipped now until the film's release next year." - I'd dequote this to "declined to speculate about the film's release" and leave the next bit as a quotation. Is a bit jarring as is.

:: Does this this work? Dark Knight 2149 21:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

but added "that says a lot more about how bad those other films are than how good this one is. - better rephrased and dequoted.

Done. Dark Knight 2149 07:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tunnicliffe had to balance directing the film and overseeing the FX work.~~ ~~- you mean "special effects work"? abbreviation a bit too casual I think~~

Done. Dark Knight 2149 21:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, prose is ~~otherwise~~ okay, and seems pretty comprehensive. ~~Need to look over again.~~ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Alright, sorry for the slight wait. I'm going to be spending the next few days addressing these concerns. Dark Knight 2149 03:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool/life happens/go for it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.