Talk:Killer Klowns from Outer Space/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RobBertholf (talk · contribs) 09:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will get to work on the review tomorrow. Love this movie! @Rob talk 09:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

2nd opinion Some criteria 2 and 6 issues. There are several references to Amazon.com that wouldn't cut WP:RS. YouTube references also need to be questioned. What is HorrorNews.net, and is it a reliable source? Is the popcorn gun photo really fair use? Ribbet32 (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, I took a brief glance at the sources and yeah, some of them are a bit sketchy. For instance, as much as I have enjoyed Good Bad Flicks in the past, I don't know that I'd trust them as a reliable source, particularly being that they are on YouTube. As far as images go, I think the popcorn gun is acceptable. At least in its current state, the article makes rather specific reference to the significance of the gun as a movie prop, so I think it's important that the reader get to see what it looks like. - @Rob talk 18:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the popcorn gun is mentioned in the article, but in practice Wikipedia is no longer that flexible about screenshots. Particularly if the popcorn gun is modeled after ray guns, Commons has free alternatives. That's another point- is it modeled after ray guns? Is it modeled on anything? Ribbet32 (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no free alternative that could accurately convey the popcorn guns shown in the film. –Matthew - (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would second dropping the YouTube source also as its reliability is dubious. The same goes to HorrorNews.net; it is not listed as RS for anything horror per WP:FILM/R. I can't comment about the image, though. I would also like to comment further in regards to the lede as it doesn't touch base on main points. For instance, there should be a little bit about how this movie was conceived, maybe in the second paragraph. Slightlymad (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find a non-YouTube source for the information. –Matthew - (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lead was something I had noticed too, yeah. It felt like it didn't do much more than the barest points of the article (I haven't really done more than a glimpse of the rest, though I will tonight). I'm really sorry if I do anything wrong here, as I'm still learning about the nomination process! @Rob talk 06:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two more points: the plot might be able to be trimmed down. For example, does the article require describing the scene where the clown kills the biker? Secondly, the Production section feels like it's listing trivia, just in paragraph form. Can you fix it to flow better? Thanks! @Rob talk 07:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do regarding the Plot, but I disagree with your concerns about the Production section. –Matthew - (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RobBertholf: After looking over the Plot section, it amounts to 619 words, which is in line with WP:FILMPLOT. I don't think there's any reason to trim down the plot. –Matthew - (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MatthewHoobin: Do you still intend to resolve the issues raised by the reviewer? Neither the article nor this review page has had a response from you since this review started. Please tell us your plans. Many thanks. Slightlymad (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Slightlymad: I'm going to see what I can get around to fixing up. Thanks for the notification. Cheers! –Matthew - (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: The citation to the YouTube video by GoodBadFlicks has been replaced with a reference to a featurette on the Midnite Movies DVD release of the film. Lucky it was on my shelf. –Matthew - (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just checking in to say that I'll try to get to looking over the responses tomorrow. @Rob talk 23:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thought it over and looked at the changes and I'm satisfied with the points on production and story. It looks good, my only issue is that the lead is still too sparse. @Rob talk 21:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MatthewHoobin: I would drop the Cast section entirely and add the cast names in the Plot instead. We are not an indiscriminate provider of information; everything here should be encyclopaedic in nature. Providing cast names in the running prose of a plot summary not only gives context (actors and characters mentioned together aids understanding of who played what, versus cross referencing the prose with a later list), and also ensures that only names which are actually important enough to warrant mentioning are listed. SLIGHTLY^mad 14:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Slightlymad: I can understand how placing the actors' names next to their roles in the Plot section would give context, but I don't understand the desire to remove the Cast section. There's no reason I can see as to why a Cast section would be detrimental to the quality of the article, and keeping the section wouldn't make the article un-encyclopedic in nature, as such a section falls perfectly in line with Wikipedia's guidelines for film articles. –Matthew - (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the format. If there is a large cast then yes, sometimes it is better to have a dedicated section. If there is a significant amount of casting information then yes, it is sometimes beneficial to have a dedicated casting section. However, as I say, we are not a collection of statistics and as a rule we do not include entire cast lists in film articles; there's IMDb for that. Many readers—myself included—find it useful to have the cast names in the plot so we don't have scroll down to another part of the article to see who is playing who! WP:FILMCAST is pretty clear about this. SLIGHTLY^mad 15:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer it with the Cast section, but hey, guidelines are guidelines, and after looking it over, you're correct. I've integrated the information from the Cast section into the Plot and Production sections. –Matthew - (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have anymore issues at the moment besides the lead. Once the lead is expanded further, I am happy to pass it. @Rob talk 21:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MatthewHoobin: Ding-dong. The article has one issue remaining which prevents it from ever attaining the Good Article status. I suggest you get on with it as soon as you can. Thanks, SLIGHTLY^mad 04:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RobBertholf: I've expanded the lede section. How're we looking now? –Matthew - (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]