Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment/2009/Failed

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Failed[edit]

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre[edit]

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Failed due to lack of comment. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator: TaerkastUA (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the article has undergone major changes since June 2008. Although it has 3 failed FA nominations, I believe that, due to the extensive changes made, the article now meets the requirements for A-Class, and may eventually become Featured. TaerkastUA (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chak De! India[edit]

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Failed due to lack of comment Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator: Classicfilms (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to nominate this article on the important and influential film, Chak De India, currently at GA, for A-Status. Classicfilms (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

American Graffiti[edit]

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Failed Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator: Wildroot (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because after doing both a comprehensive and exhaustive rewrite, this article has greatly improved in the span of a couple of weeks. Suggestions would be great. Also, I intend to replace the IMDb citation from the Awards section. I also plan on finish writing the Cast descriptions, even if they aren't required (see 300 (film)#Cast). Wildroot (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Intro is too long, really pushing hard against the four paragraph limit with really big paragraphs, instead of being a nice comfortable two or three paragraphs. Also it would be good to include some of cast information inline in the plot summary because formatting it as Character Name ([Actor Name]) make it much easier to follow what is happening. None of that would probably stop this from getting A Class but I hope you'll consider making the extra effort to make the article the best it can be. (I'll try and come back and take a look at cleaning it up myself.) -- Horkana (talk) 05:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nemesis (Resident Evil)[edit]

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Failed Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because all applicable information for the article in reliable sources has been gathered, cited, and placed into the body of text to round the subject out fully. Article is currently GA across the board, and A-class for the video game and Horror projects already.Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how this is already at A-Class status for two other WikiProjects, I'll support this nomination. Wildroot (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

U2 3D[edit]

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Failed Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article is currently at GA-status and has undergone two peer reviews since its creation. I believe that every aspect of the film has been covered to an extent in the article and it is written very well according to Wikipedia standards. I would like to see the article promoted to A-class before perfecting it for its FA nomination, of which it is not too far off. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see much that could be improved on, and Dream out Loud has done a fantastic job over the months getting it to this standard. A couple of nitpicky things I'm noticing.
  • Setlist: There's quite a bit of whitespace between "All titles written by U2, except "Miss Sarajevo" written by U2 and Brian Eno" and the actual listing. Anyway this can be reduced/removed?
  • Editing: The article says "the final film was cut to a length of 85 minutes—seven minutes short of its originally announced run time of 92 minutes." I don't know if it has ever been revealed or not, but I'd certainly be interested in knowing which track was removed if it could be found anywhere.
  • Screenings and Release: The article briefly mentions the 3D glasses and how they were polarized differently depending on which format was viewed. It was a while ago, but I seem to recall that this was one of the first (if not the first) films to use 3D glasses that advanced (though I may be wrong on that). If it is true, is there any way to add in another sentence or two regarding this?
Other than that, I can't see anything wrong with it. Great work on a fantastic article, Dream out Loud! MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the whitespace goes, I don't see any when I look at the article on my computer, so maybe its just your browser? The film's run time was shortened from 92 minutes to 85 minutes, but I could not find any sources stating which single song was removed, although several songs that were filmed and left out were listed in that section. Polarized 3D glasses have been around for a while, so this wasn't the first movie to implement them, just the first movie to be filmed and screened exclusively in digital 3-D. The glasses used to view the film were the same type of glasses used to view other IMAX 3D or Real D films. –Dream out loud (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by PC78

A well-researched and well-written article. I can't find much to fault, so the following may seem a bit nitpicky, however....

  • "The project was created to experiment with a new type of 3-D film technology..." -- A bit vague; can the lead elaborate a bit more on the "new technology"?
  • "The film was praised for its 3-D technology and innovation." -- Sentence is a bit short and seems out of context; praise for the 3-D technology is mentioned again later in the lead, so I think this is unnecessary here.
  • "Following its release, U2 3D became the..." -- A bit too wordy; "U2 3D was the..." should suffice.
  • "John Modell had a connection with U2..." -- This sentence doesn't sit right with me. Having looked at the original source, might I suggest: "David and John Modell had been involved in the design of what would become the Ravens Stadium at Camden Yards during the 1990s, for which they were interested in using LED display video technology." Also, the article suggests that John Modell toured with U2, but if I'm reading the source right it was actually David Modell.
  • "The fourth leg of the tour featured eight shows..." -- Redundant to the previous sentence.
  • "During the filming period, one of the cameras was destroyed by water, and the remainder of the cameras were later waterproofed." -- A bit clunky. Again, having looked at the source, might I suggest: "The cameras were all waterproofed after one of them was inadvertantly drenched with water."
  • "The film also became the highest grossing documentary to be considered for an Academy Award nomination in 2008" -- Unclear; was it the "highest grossing documentary to be considered for an Academy Award nomination" period or just for the 2008 awards?

I've edited out some of my more trivial concerns, and I don't have the issue with the whitespace mentioned above. I'll wait until my concerns are addressed before commenting futher, but I don't see any real reason why I wouldn't support this nomination. Regards. PC78 (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed up the article using most of the suggestions listed above. I feel as if the "waterproofed" sentence is ok, and changing it around to the suggestion listed above messes up the flow of the rest of the sentences in the paragraph. As far as for the Academy Award nomination, I think it's pretty straightforward that the film was the highest grossing just for the year 2008, otherwise it would have been more clear, such as "In 2008, the film also became the highest grossing documentary of all time to be considered for an Academy Award nomination." –Dream out loud (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still see a slight issue with those two points, so I'll have another go at trying to resolve them. The "waterproofed" sentence has one too many commas and with the repetition of "cameras" doesn't flow particuarly well. How about: "One camera was destroyed by water during the filming period, which led to the remaining camereas later being waterproofed." For the latter point, "...considered for a nomination at the 81st Academy Awards in 2008" might work better, as well as providing a more specific link. PC78 (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the sentences about the waterproofing and about the Oscar noms. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion to A-Class. Hopefully a few more people will be able to take a look at this. PC78 (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Erik

Hello, I used Checklinks to update some URLs in the article. I have two suggestions regarding the article's references. First, if you are interested in cutting down the KB size of the article, you do not need the publisher= for works that already have their own article, such as The New York Times or Variety. (This rationale is from Template:Cite news, where under the "publisher" description, it says, "The company or organization that publishes the news source. Not necessary for major publications like The New York Times, but may add credibility for local papers that are part of a family of publications like The McClatchy Company." My other suggestion is to write out the dates in the references in full since there is no auto-formatting these days. I believe that readers can more quickly read the date when fully written out and not in ISO formatting. May also help to use WP:NBSP for the dates (between month and day). Below are some so-called "nitpicky" suggestions:

  • Last two sentences of lead section use "stated" twice; perhaps just use "said" or use better/more varied verbs
  • In "Synopsis", is there a better section heading that can be used than "Personnel"? Why not "Musicians"?
  • "While waiting to hear from the league, 3ality executives Jon and Peter Shapiro proposed the idea of creating a 3-D concert film, after having produced the 2-D IMAX concert film All Access in 2001." This sentence feels clumsy. Not sure how to rewrite it; any thoughts?
  • "As U2 had experimented with video technology in the past, the band was mainly interested in the 3-D film project as a technological experiment rather than to make a profit." The first part of the sentence does not seem to relate to the second part. Can this be clarified or rewritten?
  • In the "Filmed concerts" table, the flag icons seem unnecessary to include. Review MOS:FLAG to see if they need placement or not.
  • "Instead of directing the band in how to perform, the band indirectly directed the crew as they performed each of the concerts as usual, with the filming crew capturing footage in real-time for 2½ hours during each concert." Who was supposed to direct the band in how to perform? (I assume the crew, but it needs to be said.) Not understanding how "the band indirectly directed the crew" and really recommend a different pairing than "indirectly directed".
  • "...since they felt that those songs were out of place with the rest of the film." Who is "they" in this instance?
  • "Many of the transitions in the film were justified created by layering several frames of footage on top of one another." "Justified created" is off here, but not clear enough on the technology to fix myself.
  • Do we need to link to "U2" again in the "Screenings and releases" section? Seems like they would have been linked enough by this point.
  • "pulled from theaters" sounds like something negative happened. Seems from what I have read so far this film was always going to receive a short run. Which is the case?
  • I nixed "overwhelmingly positive" as non-neutral wording since Rotten Tomatoes says nothing like that. It's best to present the figures neutrally.
  • "even better than the real thing" is not attributed; too many works mentioned before this to know what to reference for attribution

I performed general copy-editing for each section in the article; hopefully the separate copy-edit for each section makes review easier. Most changes are minimal, but I rewrote the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic sentences in their entirety to provide better clarify to readers, since not all may be familiar with the so-called "Fresh" rating. Please respond to my suggestions above or my copy-editing, both of which I am happy to discuss. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I copyedited the article based on most of the suggestions listed above, with few exceptions:
  • I checked MOS:FLAG and I feel that the flags in the table are appropriate for the article because they are all listed in a table (that isn't an infobox) and do not offset the flow of the rest of the article body.
  • The sentence "As U2 had experimented with video technology in the past, the band was mainly interested in the 3-D film project as a technological experiment rather than to make a profit." seems fine to me. It basically states that the film was a video technology-based experiment for the band, and they had experimented with video technology in the past as well.
  • The "even better than the real thing" reference is attributed. The point of that sentence is that all 5 of the sources listed said the film was "even better than the real thing" in one way or another.
–Dream out loud (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll concede the flag matter. I also slightly rewrote the technological experiment sentence to be clearer. For "even better than the real thing", you are using quotation marks, so there has to be someone to attribute. If you wrote these in your own words to consolidate the reviews' consensus, it should be paraphrased and not explicitly quoted. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also leery of the quote box with the quote from The Edge. It does not belong in the "Critical response" section, and it is a bit on the promotional-sounding side. It is ideal to avoid opinions from those involved with films unless they are specifically illustrative. For example, a director saying, "I think this is the best film I've ever done" vs. "I aimed to explore a combination of so-and-so genres to produce something new" -- which is more substantive, you know? —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any issue with the quote sounding too promotional, though I do agree that it is misplaced in the article. It would seem more appropriate in the "Filming" section, though there isn't much room for it. PC78 (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Girolamo Savonarola
  • It was also the first live-action film to be shot, produced, and screened exclusively with both 3-D and digital cinema technology - some of the sources clearly indicate that particular shots were filmed in 2D and then turned into virtual 3D.
  • surpassing the film's budget - "making it profitable" sounds like awkward.
  • The video excerpt seems to me to strongly fail our fair usage guidelines. It is purely illustrative and does not enhance understanding of anything in particular from the article, nor is it an authorized usage from National Geographic, nor is it sourced from anything of decent-enough quality. I would have strong objections to this in FAC as well were it to remain within the article.
  • The Focal Point source has extensive technical information within the article, and yet virtually none of this is used. Why? (If you need some "translation", feel free to let me know.)
  • they and the team - unclear antecedent
  • U2 frontman Bono also expressed interest in the project, and he convinced the other three members of the band to become involved in the project - "in the project" repeated
  • Upon completion of the film, U2 3D became the third concert film from the Vertigo Tour - huh? And if so, why is this being mentioned here, instead of in the Release section?
  • minus the first show - "with the exception of the first show"
  • Similar issues with the first three stills pics as with the video clip, although the "coexista" sign might be acceptable in the Synopsis section. I look at these and think, "that's great that someone was willing to upload their personal photos, but how is any of this directly relevant to the article in particlar, and how is it informative to the subject in a way that the article text isn't?" At the moment, I don't see anything to indicate this.
  • The filmed concerts table does not include any information about the filmed "fake concert" - as this was part of the finished film, shouldn't it? You could always include a comment or caption to indicate it was audience-less.
  • Carl Zeiss digital zoom lenses - usually referred to as Zeiss, not Carl Zeiss. Also, should not link to digital zoom. Digital zoom is a form of electronic pseudozoom which is used by consumer-based cameras. B4 mount cameras such as the F950 don't have lenses with digital zoom functions, since it severely degrades image quality and the systems can swap out for longer lenses where needed. The lenses this film used were [Zeiss Digital zoom lenses http://www.zeiss.com/C125756900453232/ContentsWWWIntern/8C5E1DDE818D1251C125756F0044B799]. In other words, Zeiss lenses designed for digital camera systems, but with fully optical zoom housings. So the correct linkage would be Zeiss digital zoom lenses, or to be clearer, digital Zeiss zoom lenses.
  • which captured video in a 70 mm film format onto HDCAM SR recording decks - I don't even know what this means. You can't capture video in 70 mm film format. If this is referring to the aspect ratio, it's still wrong, since the 70mm format is a 2.20:1 ratio, while IMAX is a 70mm gauge, but has a 1.43:1 aspect ratio. In either case, the ratio would be incompatible with HDCAM SR, which records a 1.78:1 (16:9) ratio.
  • requiring the cameras on each rig to be welded together - again, unclear. Welding the cameras to each other, or to the rig? Do they mean "welded" literally, like arc welding, or just as in "intensely secured together"? Welding the cameras together would destroy them - they're not that rugged. Welding them to the rig is possible if you're counting particular accessory plates underneath, but again, this is questionable...
  • Five operators - operators or camera crew members? Camera assistants (who deal with focus usually) are not operators usually, and vice versa.
  • Owens had little film directing experience, she was involved with every aspect of the film except for the live shoots - again, huh? What exactly did she do, then?
  • Editor Olivier Wicki was chosen to work on the post-production of the film, after previously working on U2's "Original of the Species" music video. Wicki worked closely - a bit too much "work"
  • Owens sought to have only 14–15 songs out of 26 would appear - grammar
  • "Vertigo" was selected to be the opening song. "City of Blinding Lights" was left out of the film though it was the opening song for all nine filmed concerts, as well as most of the concerts throughout the entire Vertigo Tour. - Perhaps better written as Although "City of Blinding Lights" was the opening song for all nine filmed concerts, as well as most of the Vertigo Tour, "Vertigo" was chosen to open the film instead."? Or something to that effect. Feels less perfunctory and staccato.
  • 20,000 square foot (1900 square meter) 3-D production facility, which opened prior to the completion of the filming - why is this relevant?
  • including the primary software 3action - needs a comma in front of 3action.
  • edited into a format - a format? Do you mean a manner?
  • The film was captured in a super image resolution of high-definition video, so each frame of the film used nearly 20 megabytes of data - I see nothing in the reference which mentions the resolution. HDCAM SR captures in standard 1080p resolution; large file sizes are comprised of more than just resolution - in HDCAM SR, the 4:4:4 chroma subsampling is the main reason for large file sizes, amongst several factors.
  • The entire video editing process took 17 months, and the final film was cut to a length of 85 minutes—seven minutes shorter than the originally announced run time of 92 minutes. - this (along with the prior sentence) makes it appear that the length of the cut had to do with the budget and the editing time. Is this actually the case? Since the length is dictated by the songs, surely the 7 minute difference was able to be determined as soon as they decided what the final setlist was going to be and picture was locked, which generally occurs long before complicated render processes.
  • You may also want to contact Hot Gears (www.hotgears.com), as I am aware that they had to design a completely new camera rig (which they subsequently named "the U2") in order to support the weight of the 3D configuration. While I can't find any sources for this online, my guess is that the company has access to several and can assist you in finding them.
  • so it coincided with - "in order to coincide with"
  • The first week of the film's wide release was the both highest-grossing week of its theatrical run, grossing $1,026,121, averaging $1,500 per theater. - both this and...?
  • Three weeks into its wide release, U2 3D was playing in less than 100 theaters internationally. At the time, the film had only grossed $6.6 million, while Disney's Hannah Montana & Miley Cyrus 3-D concert film, still playing in many theaters since its February 1 release, had brought in over $60 million. - And why is this relevant?
  • The consensus was that - The site's consensus was - Rotten Tomatoes does not speak for the public at large.
  • while the final 85-minute cut - when the final 85-minute cut
  • I'm not sure that the Edge's pop-out quote needs to be there. Either summarize in the text (as you already have) or quote in the text directly, but having both is superfluous.
  • The month before the film's premiere, the extensive use of technology during production was featured as the cover story in the December 2007 issue of the high-definition video magazine HDVideoPro.[22] The film's usage of evolutionary technology also provoked Catherine Owens to be chosen as one of the featured guest speakers at the SIGGRAPH 2008 conference, which took place several months after the film's initial release - None of this should be in this section; the Siggraph detail is already covered in the article, while a major release being featured in an industry magazine is extremely commonplace and not worthy of mention in and of itself.
On the whole, though, the article looks strong - in essence, I just want to see more attention to particular sources, better usage and application of AV materials (notably in the context of relevance and fair usage requirements), tighter copy editing, and more accurate technical description. Good luck, and I look forward to seeing this continue to improve! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your input. I will definitely go through the article and touch it up based on your suggestions. I haven't had too much free time to work on Wikipedia lately, but I will work on it when I get a chance. Obviously, there is still work that needs to be done before FA-status, but is the article (in its current state) worthy of an A-class rating? –Dream out loud (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. I expect comments to be acted on in some manner or another, not just heard. The fair use issues alone will quickly disqualify a support on my part without some compelling course of their being addressed. If you disagree with some of the comments, please feel free to explain why, but otherwise, I'm going to need more than just a confirmation of receipt. Sorry, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've finally gotten around to going through the article and making changes based on your suggestions. I agreed with most of them, and have comments to make about a few:
  • I feel as if the video clip does fall under fair use guidelines. Yes, it is of low quality, but all non-free content should be of low resolution anyway. I think that the video falls under the all the necessary criteria at WP:NFCC. It illustrates the article to give the reader an idea of the film's appearance and style in which is was shot; just the same way that a song article has a clip of the song, this film article has a brief clip of the film.
  • The Focal Point source does have lots of technical information, but I don't know how to implement that into the article. I was hoping to get some assistance from someone at the Film Wikiproject to assist with that.
  • The two images in the filming section were included as they show both the concert and the filming taking place, with cameras clearly visible in each image.
  • The "fake concert" or "phantom shoot" purposely was not included in the table of concerts shot as it wasn't a "real concert".
  • I haven't read any sources stating that the final run time being shorter than intitally announced had anything to do with budget or time. I couldn't find any sources stating why the times were different.
  • I didn't find any information on Hot Gears' camera rig and I feel that even if they did send me information via email or something, I would not be able to cite it properly.
  • The Hannah Montana concert film's gross is relevant because its inital extended release delayed the release of this film. I thought it would also be good to compare to the grosses of two 3-D concert films released at the same time in theaters, since there aren't too many 3-D films in existance.
  • I think The Edge's pop-out quote fits in nicely because it expresses his feelings and emotions about shooting the last few concerts, and that his emotions would not have the same effect if they were simply rewritten into a summary sentence. Despite this, several other editors do seem to disagree with me on this, but I'm open to suggestions for any other type of quote that would fit in that section.
  • I think that the film's appearnce on the cover of a magazine is relevant because the main article in that issue was all about the movie's technology and filming, as opposed to just featuring a review of some sort. I also included the SIGGRAPH info again to note how Catherine Owens was chosen to speak because of her work done with the film and its technology. The previous mention of the SIGGRAPH conference was to simply mention that it was screened there, but did not mention why she was chosen as the speaker.

These are just my opinions about the article and I'm sure there will be some disagreements on some and I hope that we can come to some sort of consensus on it to be able to promote this to A-Class, and eventually FA-Class. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen[edit]

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Failed due to lack of comment. PC78 (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: uKER (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because after some time since the movie came out, the article has achieved a certain state of maturity which I think entitles it for A-class status. uKER (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre[edit]

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Failed PC78 (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: TaerkastUA (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am renominating this article for A-Class review because it failed the first time due to lack of comment. I believe the article meets the requirements because has undergone major changes since June 2008, and continues to improve. Although it has 3 failed FA nominations, I believe that, due to the extensive changes made, the article now meets the requirements for A-Class, and may eventually become Featured. --TaerkastUA (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Andrzejbanas
  • In the lead, "...story, characters, and graphic content,[8] But it became a strong...". the "But" shouldn't be capitalized.
  • "Slasher-film" should be changed to "Slasher film" just for consistency with the article.
  • In the production section where the film explains other films influenced by Gein, seems to stray from the topic of The Texas chain Saw Massacre's production. I'm not sure if this section's appropriate.

*In the third paragraph in Development, discussion turns to "Midway through the editing process". This seems to flow better structurally, but I'm not sure if it's under the appropriate heading. *"The company folded in 1976". Perhaps stating the company's name is better here. In this paragraph, a lot of names are being tossed around and it's a bit hard to figure which is correct. *"The blood depicted was sometimes real.[35]" Perhaps information about this should be moved closer to the information about the stage blood and the person cutting their finger. Even though it's stated, this is kind of a vague statement that does not really suggest much. Was the "real blood" just the blood from the finger? Or was it more? I'd remove this actually. This also goes for "The crew covered the walls of the house with splats of dried blood to give the house an authentic look." So is this the real blood or the fake blood? The sentence suggests it's real but I'm just double-checking. * "Until 1976, when the contract with Bryanston expired, the film was double-billed with "another film they'd [Bryanston] bought for twenty bucks." so who said this? when? More information would be appreciated. *That temperature information in the filming section seems to need a cite. Is it part of the same cite as the camera information? I'd toss in a few more cites there. *"The film was banned or delayed in many countries, and where it was released, it was frequently re-edited." This sentence only follows up with the information about the UK and Australian releases. Is there any other information about other countries as well? Otherwise, it should only describe Australia and the United Kingdom as that's the only countries that are discussed. *"It was selected for the 1975 Cannes Film Festival Directors' Fortnight, though the viewing was delayed due to a bomb scare,[55] and it won the Grand Prize at the Avoriaz Film Festival in 1976." Perhaps these sentences should be separated in two. Maybe a sliver more information about what and where the Avoriaz Film Festival is held? To my knowledge it's a fantastique film festival in France. That could be expanded a pinch.

  • MOS:FILM#Critics suggests that for older films reviews should be organized to show the initial reception and then to show more modern reception. It's hard to tell for an average reader what review was based on the film's original release and what is the later reception. This whole section could use a re-balancing.

* If that Variety citation's original date is to be believed, then Variety somehow managed to watch the film before it was released. I'd remove that, several reviews on Variety's website state incorrect dates claiming several reviews to be written on New Year's Day.

  • I wouldn't trust the Ebert one as well which also states the January 1 date.

* "In a 2005 poll conducted by Total Film, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre topped the list as the greatest horror film of all time, beating John Carpenter's Halloween and William Friedkin's The Exorcist (1973)." Does it really matter that it beat those two others? That seems rather insignifigant as it also beat out 48 other films as well. *That rotten tomatoes cite should say "film" instead of movie. It doesn't really explain what rotten tomatoes is to a non-average reviewer and I'd either incorporate this cite earlier or remove it entirely. *"The film was again banned in the United Kingdom in 1984, during the moral panic surrounding video nasties". This needs a citation, the citation it is followed by lacks any information about video nasties. * "and, due to the controversy surrounding the film" that cite says nothing about why it was released in the UK at that date. * Citation 82 seems to need to be updated. * Citation 89 could use a page number.

I added the url instead.--TaerkastUA (Talk) 12:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* "Comedian Patton Oswalt refers to the title as "The Greatest Movie Title Ever", because it perfectly describes the movie.". I like Oswalt but he doesn't have much relation with the film or the genre so I don't think his statement is very important.

  • Several inconsistencies with style happen throughout the article. Often we have the magazine stating something while other times we have Authors of articles (with no magazine or publication stated) describing the situation. Try to keep it more clear like with this opening phrase in "Scott Von Doviak of Hick Flicks said..."

* That Total Film poll does not need to be brought up twice. Constantly using it to state that it's "generally considered" one of the greatest horror films of all time might be a jump too. Just because Total Film does, doesn't mean other critics do as well. * Citation 100 and 104 do not seem to state what they are citing. In fact if citation 100 calls the Texas chainsaw massacre game and action game while the article calls it an horror game.

The game is a horror-based action game, not purely a horror game. The article states that.--TaerkastUA (Talk) 12:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* What makes Icons of Fright a valid source? * Citation 108 seems to be citing a messageboard which I don't believe is a good source. Could you explain how this is a valid source?

Although it is a messageboard, the actual website does have news related to comics. Also, the press release does seem genuine.--TaerkastUA (Talk) 12:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that the comic book database is a good source as like imdb, it seems to be user generated rather then expert information.

* "In the movie, R. A. Mihailoff starred as Leatherface." is this really important? Also, it's uncited and say "film" rather then movie. * " The film was a semi-remake of the original, although it was originally intended to be a complete remake of the first film.". This needs a citation. The review in the guide suggests it was, but doesn't explain it further.

  • I'm not sure if reviews in the "Sequels" section should critique those films on their own merit. Quotations should be used to see what relation they have to the original film and how critics felt it compared.

*The ALT tag in the infobox could go into more detail about the poster. Check out Spider-man 3 for example. Half this poster is large text so that could be noted as that information can not be read by the blind with any tools.

Done.--TaerkastUA (Talk) 10:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*per WP:LEADCITE, we don't need those extra citations in the intro paragraph. Several of those statements match up with information that is already cited in the article below. *per Wikipedia:Words to avoid, we see a lot of however's in this article suggesting one alternative is better or worse over another. These should be re-phrased to have the article in a Neutral point of view.

Removed and rephrased some of the howevers. --TaerkastUA (Talk) 10:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*per Wikipedia:MOS#Brackets_and_parentheses we should not have sentences that follow up with phrases like "(It was overtaken by John Carpenter's Halloween (1978), which grossed $47 million at the box office upon release.[54])". It doesn't need to be in brackets.

Okay I'm a bit exhausted! That's all for now. After these things are addressed I will continue the review. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've started taking care of some of the problems. I know there is more to be sorted out, which I'll take care of later. Unfortunately, with me being the only main editor, this article will most likely never see A-class status, much less FA. I've requested help, but I do seem to be the only one consistantly editing. I've also put in a request for copyediting. --TaerkastUA (Talk) 18:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've taken care of most of the problems. I'm not sure about the Ebert and Variety references, I don't know when critics see the films. For citation 111, although it's a messageboard, it shows a press release, but you could be right about it. I will probably remove the Icons of Fright source when I get round to it. Thanks, --TaerkastUA (Talk) 17:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep up the good work! After a good majority of the items are crossed out, I'll look over it again to see if there's anything else I missed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Assessment/2009/Failed&oldid=393123230"