Talk:Crimewave/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 03:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting here any issues I can't immediately fix myself, and then follow with the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

Overall this looks to be in good shape, though I have some areas still to check. As a Raimi fan, I thought it was an interestingly disastrous story, reasonably well written and clearly sourced. I've made some minor edits for clarity and copyediting throughout; please double-check me and make sure I haven't accidentally introduced any errors! Some points that could still be clarified or otherwise fixed are listed below.

• " spontaneously materializes" -- does she literally spontaneously materialize?
• " in order to clear him. " -- this is unclear--what exactly are they planning to do, and how?
• "After reading the script, however, " -- are we still talking about "Relentless" here?
• "quickly came into place" -- a bit unclear. Perhaps "The studio quickly offered financial backing"--would that be an accurate rewrite?
• "it led to confidence in the studio" -- Raimi had confidence in the studio? Or the studio had confidence in him?
• "Raimi was initially allowed complete creative control on the project; however, this later proved not factual" -- confusing. It wasn't factual that he was initially allowed complete creative control? Or he was initially given control, and the control was later taken away?
• "This allowed for Campbell to take a "behind-the-scenes" approach during the production." -- what does this mean?
• "Their first disagreement stemmed from their insistence" -- clarify pronouns; "their" seems to mean two different things in this sentence.
• "Their first disagreement stemmed from their insistence to cast a "Hollywood" actor in the lead role instead of Raimi's long-time collaborator and friend Campbell." -- this sentence seems to be redundant with the previous paragraph
• "but they had not taken union fees" -- who is "they" here? Isn't it just Raimi doing the budgeting?
• " they were talked into spending" -- who is "they"?
• "taking to task" -- rewrite per WP:IDIOM (maybe "criticized")?
• "Production was often inflicted with "weird" events" -- "inflicted with" doesn't seem like the right word here. What about "delayed by" or "affected by"?
• "although they later compromised" -- who is "they" here--the studio, or Raimi and the studio?
• " that they had gone severely over budget." -- who is "they"?
• "Raimi eventually had virtually zero involvement in the editing process of the film" -- this doesn't seem to appear on p. 168 of the given source
• "In 2010, a Funny or Die comedy video featuring actor James Franco giving tribute to several Raimi films" -- this isn't a complete sentence. I'm also not sure it's an accurate description of this video from a quick viewing (maybe "refers to" instead of "gives tribute to"?). Perhaps the two lines about this reference could simply be cut? It seems awfully trivial to include here.
• "The film has achieved the status of a minor cult film." -- this sentence from the lead should also be included in the body and sourced per WP:LEAD
• "Several elements of the film influenced later productions by Raimi, " -- is this sentence in the lead elaborated on later? The closest I can find is "A scene in a dentist office reminded him of a scene from Spider-Man 2", which doesn't seem to be the same thing.
  • " Elements of Crimewave were also re-used by frequent Raimi collaborator Josh Becker for the movie Lunatics: A Love Story, as well as by Raimi himself in Spider-Man and its sequels."
• "Even though the film was heavily tampered with by the studio, it still ended up becoming a box-office flop." -- seems like a bit of editorializing. "Tampered with" has negative connotations compared to the neutral "edited". "Ended up" seems a bit more informal than needed. Also, the "even though" implies that the studio editing should have prevented the flop, whereas I'm sure the argument can be made that the studio contributed to the film's problems.
• Why does the Film Junk citation list "NRo" as author? -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Tried to fix these all, see if something remains. igordebraga ≠ 15:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Looking good! There's only one sentence that still confuses me: "the studio believed in which meant Raimi was initially allowed complete creative control on the project". Is there a word missing here? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Done that and the one unstruck above. igordebraga ≠ 14:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
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).
	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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.