Talk:Hostel: Part II/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Stedil (talk · contribs) 19:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! This article has been sitting at the top of the GA noms list for quite some time, so I'll go ahead and review it. I'm about halfway through my initial read-through, and it looks to be in good shape overall. Progress will be updated in the table, with specific items to address below. Stedil (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I haven't actually seen the film (nor, after reading the article, do I have much desire to). I am thus not terribly familiar with intricate details of the movie's plot beyond what has been printed in sources cited within this article. Stedil (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	only a few spots to address. Update: Issues resolved.
	2b. 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).	I'm not much of an expert on reliable sources in film articles, though I don't see any reason to question any of the sources in the article.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	A little heavy on direct quotations, but otherwise no issues here.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The plot summary is a bit long (see below). Update: Plot has been trimmed to just below the word count limit.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Three images: one under CC license, the other two are movie posters with fair use rationales.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Not much to clean up. Should be good to go, pending the changes below. Update: all initial issues have been resolved satisfactorily. Critical Reception is being reworked - will hold off on passing for now so I can make sure changes fit within the GA requirements.

Action Items[edit]

WP:FILMPLOT recommends that the plot should be between 400 and 700 words. The plot currently stands at 884. The film doesn't appear to be complex enough to warrant a long plot summary. Could it be condensed while still covering all the essentials?
"7 Killer Facts" source was "consumed by zombies!" Replace with working citation, if possible.
"Hostel 2 Movie Poster revealed" link cannot be displayed due to "robots."
"it has been cut in Germany, Malaysia, and Singapore" no evidence beyond Germany presented.
"releasing the movie in this or the uncut version is to be punished." Awkward phrasing, and vague. Consider revising.
Citation needed tag at the end of "censorship."
"wrote that the film's realistic representation of violence, but criticized the conclusion" ??? rephrase.
"Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel." not listed in source.

That's all I have so far. Let me know when you're finished. Stedil (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drown Soda: Initial review is complete. I'm waiting for completion of the action items above to finish the review. Stedil (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stedil: I've addressed your action points above (i.e. truncating plot, fixing some dead links--there are a couple of instances you point out in which I was unable to find sources to corroborate what was there, so I've trimmed those out; not a huge problem as they are mostly inconsequential). --Drown Soda (talk) 04:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From an uninvolved editor[edit]

This is not a GA requirement but I was wondering if you could rewrite the Critical reception from scratch? As it stands, the prose consists almost entirely of direct quotations and it's quite a dull read. Consider rearranging them, and reducing the amount of quotes. See WP:QUOTE and WP:RECEPTION. See American Beauty and Leprechaun for excellent examples, on how to do this: try to build a narrative out of the commentary/reception on the film. What have critics in general picked up on? What are the main tenets? A bunch of quotes doth not great prose make. Apologies if this is such a strict requirement, I just thought this article could be good, if not great. Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a reasonable suggestion. I also think the use of quotations is a bit heavy (and in fact mentioned it in the table). I didn't include it in the action items because, as you mention, it isn't a GA requirement. Quotations are actually used frequently in both the articles you cited as a tool for maintaining a neutral tone. The biggest difference is that the quotes in the other articles are truncated and supported with paraphrasing. Stedil (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drown Soda: Thoughts? I'm not strictly requiring this, but I highly recommend it, as I think it will make the article better. Since this will cause a significant change to the article, I'm holding off on promoting until you've had a chance to respond. Stedil (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stedil: I agree and can see what you mean--it does read a bit rote. I will try and collate the material and give a better overview in this area (will work on it within the next day). --Drown Soda (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reception ideas[edit]

@Drown Soda: I have some thoughts to help you get started with revising the Reception section. The three main tasks for clean-up are: 1. condensing/removing extended quotes, 2. accurately paraphrasing the major conclusions of the reviews, and 3. reorganizing the reviews around central themes. Stedil (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts to help with paraphrasing[edit]

New York Times: Make sure you convey that the review is generally negative - "fractionally more tolerable," "cheap sadism-as-entertainment gross-out."
Hollywood Reporter: Should be fine after truncating the quote, with a little context. Generally positive - "step up in virtually every aspect" from the original.
New York Daily News: fine as is.
Village Voice: this one, I think, needs to be substantially revised. The author criticizes considerably more than the conclusion: "a riff on shock, a meta-movie lark," "too goofy to disturb, too silly to scare" "Routinely plotted and predictable" "In what passes for innovation"
Entertainment Weekly: mostly fine as is, but I would would cut off "despite its lousy opening weekend."
Total Film: very positive - "a superior beast," greatly improved technically, plot is "satisfying," main characters are "fun to hook up with," "astute and subversive."
Independent: I like the pairing of Total Film with Independent, since they both use the term "subversive." Consider revising the American statement so it's more clear that the Americanness of the movie is a major point.
The Guardian: two criticisms: the film is too similar to the original, and "Everything, save the bloody third act, is handled in a rudimentary fashion."
BBC: fine as is - works well partnered with the Guardian, since they both criticize the plot similarities with the original.
Film Stage: paraphrase/truncate the block quote. Stedil (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization possibilities[edit]

Try grouping generally positive reviews together, along with generally negative reviews. Look for general themes between positive critiques, as well as negative.

NY times, Village Voice, The Guardian, and BBC are generally mixed/lean negative. I think each contains at least something positive about the film.
Total Film stands out as a contemporary review that is very positive. The rest are mixed/lean positive: Hollywood Reporter, New York Daily News, Entertainment Weekly, Independent. A lot of these reviews compare the film favorably to its predecessor. Stedil (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stedil: I made some slight changes to group the reviews from critics around a certain sentiment/stance (i.e. focusing on violence, psychology, etc.). There were a few unifying things between the reviews, though some are less connected than others. Let me know if this suffices in terms of organization. --Drown Soda (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drown Soda: Thank you for your patience. I'll be returning to this article some time in the next few days, and will likely be finishing up the review. Stedil (talk) 09:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drown Soda: Take a look at the reception section now - this is more what I had in mind. I think the article now meets GA standard, so I will be passing. Thank you for your work on improving this article. Stedil (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]