Talk:Billy (Black Christmas)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Daniel Case (talk · contribs) 02:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
OK, since this has been sitting here for four and a half months for no reasons I can adequately discern, save for it not being where people expect it to be when they click on it, I'll take care of it. I will print it out, look it over, give it a light copy edit and get back in a couple of days on what I think. Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Alright, it's been a week and I have done my copy edit.
This is the first time I can recall doing this in which a lot of the issues were cleared up by the copyedit. I ultimately wound up trimming about 3K or so from the article, which means there was fat in the prose (and there was ... a lot of the passive voice, a lot of unnecessary relative conjunctions, a lot more use of "the character" when "Billy" was enough, generally a style more appropriate to a class paper, or more likely how someone was expected to write their class papers, than an encyclopedia article. But as of now those are lessons to be (hopefully) learned.
There were no deficiencies in exploring the subject. The research was done. I was not left with any questions. So the article does not lack for comprehensiveness.
I am not sure, though, that all the horror-film websites cited are reliable enough, or notable enough, for us to use them as sources. But I saw no clear red flags, and I do not feel comfortable making calls on them here. So I will take it on good faith that they are.
(I would also suggest that, in the future, the time= field in {{cite AV media}} be used to indicate where on the video the material that supports the cited statement might be found. It's not enough just to cite the video. Not when it's loong).
Looking through my notes, there are a couple of things I didn't feel it was my place as GA reviewer to edit:
- Should we put "The Moaner" up in the lede sentence, as in "Billy, originally just "The Moaner ..."? This is in keeping with our usual practice and WP:ASTONISH, since that term redirects here, and if we want to boldface it it should ideally be in the lede sentence or close to it as well)
- Since Kemper's mugshot is extracted from a free image, it is itself free and should be on Commons under the same PD-CAGov license as the original (I can do this if you want).
- One of my issues when copy editing was the same one I have with a lot of other articles ... the unnecessary restatement of information. It happens here, as well. Twice we quote Robert Mann the actor who played Billy in the 2006 version describing him as "a ticking time bomb". I think that the first time, at least, we could just find some paraphrase. I also think the second and third sentences of the first paragraph of the "Characterization" section could be trimmed down a bit; as it is they restate too much.
- Reworded the "time bomb" quote. As to the first paragraph in the characterization section, much of that is a critical analysis of the character, I removed some bits that were rather pointless and illegitimate.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Lastly the article needs to address the apparent overcitation. That second sentence mentioned above has four cites on Billy's motivations not being revealed in the original. It's important, but is that really such a controversial statement that it needs that much authority?
In the legacy section, I can understand if that first statement about the character establishing the defining traits of the slasher needs multiple cites (but maybe not four?) I can't understand why the "overshadowing" needs three, though ... it sort of feels as if someone felt a deep need to impress someone by showing all the work.
The article should just pick the sources considered most authoritative and important and cite them and them alone.
- Did the same for this as well, kept the more legitimate sources.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm giving the editors/nominator the usual week to address this, either in a response here as to why it should be that way, or actual edits. Until then it's on hold. Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I fixed the Kemper image problem myself, and since all the other changes have been made we need not wait a week. ✓ Pass Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)