Talk:The Thing (1982 film)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 09:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this article. Thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over this article. It seems pretty good. There are some small pieces of information that still need to be given citations such as the info mentioning the novelization being based on the second draft of the screenplay (I couldn't find any mention of that when I looked around for sources). I mentioned below that the film was included in the well known book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. I includes a quote from the book's entry on it.--Paleface Jack 16:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I will look at the article and provide some comments first thing tomorrow.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • "The Thing has spawned a variety of merchandise including a 1982 novelization, haunted houses, and board games, sequels in comic books and a video game of the same name, and a 2011 prequel film also of the same name." — Can be rephrased as "The Thing has spawned a variety of merchandise including a 1982 novelization, haunted houses, board games, sequels in comic books, a video game, and a 2011 prequel film of the same name."
  • "David Foster and Lawrence Turman pitched an adaptation" — "pitched" sounds a tad informal. Try something more formal.
  • Add the year for The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
    • Hi Ssven, I added the year, changed "pitched" to "suggested", I redid the lead sentence "haunted houses, board games, and sequels in comic books, a video game of the same name, and a 2011 prequel film also of the same name." - The latter three I wanted to make clear that they are story continuations rather than just a video game, otherwise it emphasises only the comics as sequels. At least the way I am reading it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the year for Logan's Run (the novel that is).
  • Wikilink "pro- human" and remove the space between the hyphen and "human" (i.e. change it to "pro-human").
  • Can you reword "who was interested but was never pursued" to avoid repetition of "was" in close proximity?
  • Add the year for Escape from New York.
    • Added year for Logan's Run
    • I can't seem to see an article for "pro-human"? Just one for "Pre-human"
    • Changed to "who showed interest"
    • There is a year present, there's an earlier mention of Escape from New York in the writing section.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Filming then moved to the Universal lot in summer when the outside heat was over 100 degrees. The internal sets were climate controlled to 28 degrees to facilitate filming." — Celsius or Fahrenheit? BTW, try something else other than ending the first and last sentence with "filming". Kind of looks odd.
  • Wikilink "humidifiers" and "misters".
  • Wikilink "double pneumonia".
  • Why is outpost in "Outpost wall" capitalised?
  • Wikilink "Panasonic"
  • Add the years for "The Faculty, The Mist, and Slither".

I'll look at the sources tomorrow.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DoneDarkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From an uninvolved editor[edit]

Hi, I have a few concerns of my own so I hope you don't mind if I chime in:

  • I don't want to be mean or anything, but I find the writing in the Reception section to be rather pedestrian. It's not quite of a well-written standard yet. Perhaps WP:RECEPTION could be of help.
  • In my book, Screen Rant is not considered reliable, as the company states in their Terms of Use that the website is likely to be inaccurate: "The website is an editorial based website providing commentary, general information in relation to film, television and related topics. Information on the site may contain slight errors or inaccuracies; the Website does not make any warranty as to the correctness or reliability of the sites content. The Website does not provide any warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy of the information. You acknowledge that such information and materials may contain inaccuracies and errors and we expressly exclude liability for any such inaccuracies or errors. Other articles and content are opinion based (or commentary) and should not be considered factual.
  • Amazon isn't a very good source for the home media releases either because it is an online business. A reliable alternative would be AllMovie: [1]
  • The quoted text in the first paragraph of Cultural impact section exceeds at 50 words so it should be rendered a blockquote or paraphrased, if possible, without quoting.
  • I prefer you change the Metacritic source with a reliable, independent source which states that the 2011 prequel received mixed reviews on release. Review aggregators are not really arbiters of critical consensus.
  • Is Goodreads (FN 161) an acceptable source? Genuinely asking.
  • Page ranges are separated by en dash, not hyphen; footnotes 39, 129, 162 and 163 have no credited author/publisher inline; and the author's last name at FNs 85, 135 and 168 is spelled "Lambie", not Lamble.

I enjoyed reading the article as I hover through it and gave the thing some c/e (pun intended). Slightlymad 08:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC) —[reply]

    • The reception section was mostly like that when I got here, I was aiming to bring it to good, then build up the Themes and Reception before taking to FA. It's a time issue more than anything, I've already spent 3 weeks more than I wanted to on this article as sourcing information was far more difficult than I expected.
    • I disagree here, the quoted text is basically a "If we do something wrong you can't sue us", it doesn't mean the information is wrong.
    • Amazon is used sparingly, and each one has a separate source, it's mostly used to source the content on the disc and the HDDVD version which I can otherwise find no info on. I don't know if it is on AllMovie unless that is what "hi def" is referring to.
    • Reduced the quoted text.
    • Added some more sources.
    • Seems fine to me, it's high ranked on Alexa, has a decent enough article here, content doesn't seem to be user generated.
    • Fixed. Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the article looks good for GA. Reception should be redone from scratch, though, at least brilliantly written. A bunch of quotes doth not great prose make. Best of luck to your FA journey. Slightlymad 05:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
    Pass or Fail:

Thank you for addressing the comments, Darkwarriorblake. The sources now look good to go. Congratulations, the article has passed.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Thing_(1982_film)/GA1&oldid=828224118"