Jump to content

Talk:Black Christmas (2006 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: Ribbet32 (talk · contribs) 06:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the original Black Christmas, curiously made in both the infancy not only of slasher films but of the Cinema of Canada in general. So I'm kind of interested in reviewing.

  • Well-written:

    • 1a In the second para of the lede, it seems we already have too many sentences starting with "The film". "director Morgan" can simply be "Morgan"; same goes with Wong.
    Plot- "Billy gets Constance pregnant"- if he was raped, it seems funny to say he did it. "She becomes pregnant". "decapitated head"- "severed head".
    Production- "signed on to co-produced"- "signed on to co-produce". Incoherence in Casting: "previously the same year"? 1b Violation of WP:FILMLEAD- rather than Canadian-American in the first sentence, maybe say a little later in the lede "A co-production of Canada and the United States". Accolades is simply too small to be a table or even a section of its own. I'd simply include the mention of the nomination, in prose form, in the Critical reception section. Should "Additional photography" header be removed and that material included in Studio Intervention, since the Weinsteins (blech) supervised it? Desson Thomson can be linked in Reception. "It's no Scream"- why isn't Scream (1996 film) linked?

    Also @Drown Soda: the plot is slightly over MOS:PLOT guidelines at 743 726 words. Try to shorten. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiable with no original research
      2a Thoroughly referenced 2b Is Ed Movie Guide reliable? Have never heard of it. Fright Christmas book source is WP:SELFPUBLISHED. 2c. Full source review pending 2d. Appears clean
  • Broad in its coverage:
      • 3a. Fairly thorough 3b. Not a lot off-topic.
  • Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

    • 4. The fake "Release date controversy" is handled as neutrally as possible as a fake controversy can be handled.

  • Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

    • 5. No edit wars.

  • Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

    • 6. Poster is attributed, photos are free.

    • 2c review May all Your Xmases be Black book ISBN leads to the obviously wrong source [1]; [2] does not support being shot in Vancouver. [3] doesn't mention a North American cut. [4] doesn't back up "offensive, ill-founded and insensitive" is a single quote as opposed to ""offensive," "ill-founded" and "insensitive." [5] is used to say a gross for the U.S., but it would be for North America. [6] says 58 reviews, not 55.
    On hold Ribbet32 (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ribbet32: I believe I've addressed your above comments and plugged in appropriate references. Let me know if you notice something else outstanding. --Drown Soda (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Better @Drown Soda:, outstanding points are still uncrossed out. For example, the Accolades table and section should be removed, it's too small and already included in the prose. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ribbet32: Copy that. I relocated the accolades bit to the Critical reception, and tweaked the lede for the redundant use of "film." I also removed the ISBN numbers for the documentaries—these were sourced from the back of the DVD cases, but they are not books so it wasn't channeling through to the right sources; the relevant information is still there (they are documentary featurettes from the R1 DVD release of the film). Some of your other points about the sources (i.e. the Georgia Straight source not corroborating the Vancouver filming location, etc.) are still un-crossed, but I addressed these in the previous edit and replaced them with applicable sources—I'm not sure if you forgot to cross them out or if it was just overlooked. In any case--- Drown Soda (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    March 3 Followup Drown Soda, we're close now, and there's some good scholarship here, including digging up info on Edmund Kemper who I'd never heard of before. I've tracked down the AV refs to followup on 2c. Outstanding issues: Ribbet32 (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Duplicate mention of the Scream Queen in Critical response
    • Quotebox: ref does not support "The only difference"- it's "The difference"
    • the plot is slightly over MOS:PLOT guidelines at 726 words.
    • [7] is used to say a gross for the U.S., but it would be for North America.
    • [8] says 58 reviews, not 55.
    Thanks @Ribbet32: I trimmed the plot down to ~630 words and tweaked the references/prose above. As far as the duplicate Scream Queen mention, I presume you are referring to the linking in the photo caption of Winstead? I've de-linked it but still feel that it needs to be there for the sake of context (the photo was taken at an awards show where she was nominated based on her role in the film specifically). --Drown Soda (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Christmas_(2006_film)/GA1&oldid=828684209"