Talk:The Strangers (2008 film)/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: PanagiotisZois (talk · contribs) 15:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Drown Soda:, I will be reviewing this article. I just wanted to let you know that it might take me a few days before I start the review. PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Lead section[edit]
- Describe a little what the Tate murders are in the lead section.
- "Produced on a $9 million budget"
- "Its release date was postponed until spring and it..."
Production[edit]
Sceenplay[edit]
- "Bryan Bertino, who wrote the film's script, had originally titled it The Faces.
Casting[edit]
- ", from the beginning Bertino wanted Tyler for the role of Kristen."
Filming[edit]
- "however, after Mark Romanek, who was attached as director dropped out, he decided to take over directing duties."
Promotion[edit]
You need to remove the link to the YouTube trailer. Wikipedia only allows for links to YouTube videos (like music videos) if the were uploaded by a verified account / whoever has the right to upload the video. In this case, the copyright holders would be Rogue Pictures.
Other[edit]
- Place the "Musical score" section beneath the "Production" section.
- Place the "Home media" section as a sub-section to "Release" and make "Reception" into its own section.
- Once you've done that, place both "Reception" and "Critical analysis" as sub-sections with each other.
- @PanagiotisZois:, I think I've addressed each of these points and done some re-phrasing and also re-organized the layout. Let me know if you spot anything else. --Drown Soda (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The page's layout looks far better now. I will move on to an in-depth look of the page. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- The lead section and "Plot" section seem to be in order. I still think you need to make the necessary changes in the "Production" section which I've listed above. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- In the "Musical score' section, provide a source for Zach Freeman's comment. In the "Reception" section, instead of moving back and forth between the positive-negative reviews, include the negative ones first and then the positive ones. Keep the final paragraph as it is. In the "Sequel" section rewrite the first sentence: "According to Tyler, Part was set for release in 2014 but that didn't occur." Also "but IT was taken off schedule". Othen than that, the article looks pretty good. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- @PanagiotisZois:, copy that. I re-worded a few things and added a citation to the Freeman quote (unsure if this was originally there, as I don't remember it before). I believe I addressed your earlier comments concerning the production and made some slight edits to phrases you pointed out. Let me know if there's something specific that still needs attention. --Drown Soda (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Drown Soda: I made a few changes to the layout in three different edits: making the music its own sections as the information there does qualify for that, moving the marketing to the "Release" section and switching the reception so that it goes from negative to positive instead of switching back and forth. PanagiotisZois (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- @PanagiotisZois:, copy that. I re-worded a few things and added a citation to the Freeman quote (unsure if this was originally there, as I don't remember it before). I believe I addressed your earlier comments concerning the production and made some slight edits to phrases you pointed out. Let me know if there's something specific that still needs attention. --Drown Soda (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- In the "Musical score' section, provide a source for Zach Freeman's comment. In the "Reception" section, instead of moving back and forth between the positive-negative reviews, include the negative ones first and then the positive ones. Keep the final paragraph as it is. In the "Sequel" section rewrite the first sentence: "According to Tyler, Part was set for release in 2014 but that didn't occur." Also "but IT was taken off schedule". Othen than that, the article looks pretty good. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
1. Well written?:
- Prose quality:
- Manual of Style compliance: - The style did have a few problems at first but now it's fixed.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
- References to sources:
- Citations to reliable sources, where required:
- No original research:
3. Broad in coverage?:
- Major aspects:
- Focused:
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
- Fair representation without bias: - Maintains neutral point of view.
5. Reasonably stable?
- No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
- Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: Both images used have appropriate copyrights.
- Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: - First image is the poster; the second is from the film's ComicCon panel.
Overall:
- Pass or Fail: - Great work on the article. Overall I'd say you did a pretty good job by the time you nominated it. There were very few g&s mistakes and the layout needed some changing but besides that it was in good shape. PanagiotisZois (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)