Talk:Halloween (2007 film)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Plot, "during sex, Michael murders Paul and attacks", attacks who? You need to be clear. In the Development section, there's no need repetition of "Rob Zombie", mentioning it once makes it clear who you're talking about. Same section, this sentence ---> "On December 22, 2006, Malcolm McDowell was announced to be playing Dr. Loomis", is it missing a complete sentence?
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Dates need to be unlinked, per here. According to this every film article should have a cast section, ~~so I suggest one is added to the article~~. In the Reception section, there's no need for "Rotten Tomatoes" to be italicized, since its a website and per here.
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Reference 10 and 47 are missing Publisher info. According to this, there are two dead links.
Half-check. Reference 16 has a red link and Reference 45 is dead. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The seem to be fine to me, plus the link checker tool doesn't note them either.84.83.87.34 (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. 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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Not very good, per the article's history page.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Image:Halloweentrio.jpg has a weak FUR.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1b) Prose can be cleaned up, I'll let you know when I do that. You are misreading the FILM MOS guideline with regard to cast listing. It says, "Failing that, a cast list inserted into the body of the article may be appropriate, though some editors frown on lists inside articles." The key word is "may be". A simple list of the cast, which is not only provided in the plot section, but also in IMDb, is unnecessary. There was not a lot of casting information out there for the actors (which is typical of a horror film that isn't historical, ala it isn't the original Halloween). So, no, a cast list is NOT mandatory.

Well, just seeing from other film articles having cast sections, I figured that maybe it'd be useful to add one. I guess that doesn't work in this case. So, check for the no usage of the cast section. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and get to those dead links after my class tonight. What edit war are you referring to per the article's history? We've had quite a few reverts to things to the article in the past couple months, but I'm not aware of any actual "edit war" going on. Please explain your reasoning.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the image of the trio go. It doesn't add anything to the section. It's just an image of Zombie, Faerch and Mane (in make-up), which should really be supported by critical commentary if it is needed. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The choice is yours if you want the image to be gone. I can't make that decision, since I'm not a main editor for in this article. What I'm referring to the article being stable is that there's a whole lot of reverting vandalism and stuff, I'm not necessarily referring to "edit wars", that's just how the GA template is set-up. Also, take your time with the article, there's no rush for you to get the comments I left at the review. :) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a passer-by to this article because I've just watched the film for the first time. I've made a few small tweaks to the article in response to the GA review, in an attempt to help out. Like Bignole, I'm not a fan of cast lists. However, perhaps a section about the main characters and cast in prose form would be useful, in the style indicated in Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Cast and crew information? The two sentences in the 'Development' section about McDowell could be moved to such a section, and you might also be able to get similar information about the casing of the others? The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a casting section, tell me what you think.--Music26/11 22:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a start! (Remember that I'm not the GA reviewer, so my comments are independent of that.) It's a little short, though, and if it stays like it is, I'd probably lose the subheading. Do you think you'd be able to expand upon it? Halloween_(1978_film)#Casting is pretty good, and it's probably a good idea to replicate that article's structure for series continuity. The JPS ^{talk to me} 09:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of the above statements have been answered, maybe the Casting section requires a bit expansion, but it's not neccessary.--Music26/11 10:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after reading the article, I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]