Jump to content

Talk:Lake Michigan Monster/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dr. Swag Lord: Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk · contribs) Hi, I’ll be happy to take this review on. 03:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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:

· · ·

Fixes/concerns:

  • The cast section is unsourced
  • I don't think Kelly McNeely is in need of that large of a block quote. They don't seem that important.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it hard to believe there were no negative reviews/aspects of the film. For neutrality purposes, please try to incorporate some more critical reviews
Looking at the negative ones on Rotten Tomatoes, they are from sources we generally do not rely upon on Wikipiedia, which is why I didnt include them.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How important are the "Film Threat Award This!" or the "Jim Thorpe Independent Film Festival" awards? If they're not really not that noteworthy, then I don't think they should be included

Sources: While I had my doubts about a number of the sources used in the article, I realized almost all of them are interviews with the director or someone else. I guess this is fine but please make sure everything is properly attributed. Such sources include:

  • aiptcomics
Passed as a reliable source for the GA article Miles Morales.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • HorrorGeekLife
Checked off as a reliable source in the GA of Sienna Shaw.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • DailyGrindhouse
Seen a couple mentions in some passed GA articles so I don't know if it woudl be considered reliable or not.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ScreenAnarchy.com'
Has been passed as a reasonably reliable source for some time.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gruesome Magazine

On the other hand, I would eliminate the following sources as they don't seem particularly reliable:

  • horrorgeeklife (the non-interview one)
  • nightmarishconjurings
  • comingsoon.net
I stand corrected. Will strike. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping when you are done with the above and I will add some more comments. Holding for 7-days. Thank you Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

This is more of a drive-by reply as I cannot address all the critiques here today but will be more in-depth tomorrow. The cast listing does not necessarily need to be sourced as many other GA and FA articles do not do so and mostly give that information in their production sections, which I have. Changing the word B movies to "B movie" creates a nonsensical language as B movies as a whole was inspiration.
On to the sources, Nightmarish Conjurings, and CBR (Comic Book Resources) have been used in a couple of GA articles from me and others in the past with no problems and are reliable within reason. As you have said interviews need to be attributed properly and I will get working on that tomorrow. Film Threat and Jim Thorpes Awards are there cause they are notable enough to have inclusion. I had to leave out a lot of other awards and screenings to not be too extensive but those were the ones that had some notability for inclusion. I will do a deep dive into the sources tomorrow to confirm the reliability and remove the lesser ones when necessary.--16:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC) Paleface Jack (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry “B movies” is correct in the lead. It just needs a link. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other fixes:
Lead:
  • Remove italics The Lake Michigan Monster -->The Lake Michigan Monster
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • link alcoholic
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Lake Michigan Monster's visual style was developed out of necessity," --I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. What do you mean by "visual style"? The cinematography? The special effects? And I don't think "out of necessity" is needed. Please re-write to make it more clear.
Changed it to fit the interview stating the absurdist material dictated the visual style.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link film festivals
listed some notable ones in the lead.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead says Arrow Video but the infobox and Home Media section says Arrow Films. Please be consistent.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Homage
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plot:
  • Captain-- What kind of captain (boat, plane, ice hockey) ?
Changed to clarify it is sea captain.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Lake Michigan
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • intention of killing it --> intention of killing the lake monster (more clear)
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why "so-called" ? I'm assuming it was later revealed in the film he wasn't in the Navy but the rest of the plot doesn't make that clear.
Changed to fit this.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Seafield attempts to reenlist Dick and Nedge, but due to a conversation about pears, they deny his offer." --> Yeah, you're going to need to explain this a bit better for those who haven't seen the movie
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link catacombs
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link regenerates
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link harpooned
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link afterlife
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Production:
  • unlink Lake Michigan
done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • link low-budget production
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • italics Comic Book Resources
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • unlink Milwaukee
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • link director of cinematography
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Underwater sequences proved to be the most difficult to shoot, as Tews stated in an interview with horror magazine Rue Morgue, the camera operators had a limited supply of oxygen and could only shoot for a short amount of time before surfacing for air" --- >Underwater sequences proved to be the most difficult to shoot. As Tews stated in an interview with horror magazine Rue Morgue, the camera operators had a limited supply of oxygen and could only shoot for a short amount of time before surfacing for air
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a period in the image caption
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Release:
  • "The film was screened extensively at various film festivals in 2019, starting on February 2, where was screened" --> Did you mean, "where it was screened"?
Oops, my bad. Fixed it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reception:
  • Same notes as above
Addressed above.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • italics Film Threat
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • link retroactive
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot Check (6 sources):

  • "cast member Erick West, who designed the claws" checkY
  • "underwater sequences proved to be the most difficult to shoot, as Tews stated in an interview with horror magazine Rue Morgue, the camera operators had a limited supply of oxygen and could only shoot for a short amount of time before surfacing for air." checkY
  • "Development of the film's screenplay was influenced by Tews' love of the British comedy group Monty Python and the earlier episodes of the television series The Simpsons." checkY
  • "The resulting design was noted by one critic as resembling the early works of cinematic pioneer Georges Méliès" checkY
  • "Online publication Film Threat's Joshua Speiser referred to it as "[a] love letter to B-grade 1950s monster movies", commending the humor and Ed Wood-style visual aesthetic" checkY
  • FilmQuest accolades checkY Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
 Second opinion requested:
Hi, @Paleface Jack. You have done a decent job improving the article so far. Since I don’t have more comments for you as of now, I think I would want a second opinion. To be honest, I’m not any kind of expert on film articles, so it would be nice to get a fresh pair of eyes on this article in case I missed something. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d understandable. We shall see how it goes. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of concerns for second opinion:

  1. My first main concern relates to the questionable sources used in the article. While many of these sources are interviews (which is generally fine for things like the director said X), there are also non-interview sources used in the reception section. Such sources include nightmarishconjurings.com, johnnyalucard.com, horrorgeeklife.com, and MovieWeb (see WP:VALNET). There is also a WP:DUEWEIGHT concern with these sources. Additionally, Blu-Ray is used as a source (see WP:RSP/BLURAY).
NightmarishConjurings I have personally used for a previous GA nomination, Possum without any trouble to its validity. The JohnnyAlucard site is the domain of Kim Newman and a confirmed professional reviewer on Rotten Tomatoes and elsewhere so I am not worried about that source either. The only one I feel needs additional eyes would be the HorrorGeekLife one, so until we get confirmation I shall reserve my opinions on that source.--Paleface Jack (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. My second concern is that there doesn’t seem to be any negative reviews or criticism in the reception section. That seems a bit unusual to me.Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are negative reviews, unfortunately all the ones I have seen have been from questionable sources and cannot be included on Wikipiedia otherwise.--Paleface Jack (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, if another reviewer believes the above concerns are non-issues then I will happily pass the article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can see how Newman is a qualified expert in this field so that source is fine. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Paleface Jack, after doing a basic search, I found a number for sources you could use to expand the article (or use instead of the less reliable ones). Sources include Film International ([1], [2]), Media Play News ([3]), Shepherd Express ([4]), Detroit Free Press ([5]). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d sounds good. I will currently be gone for the weekend but I can do small touches here and there till I add those sources on Sunday or Monday. Paleface Jack (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Also, after looking over it again, I think MovieWeb is fine as a source since that article was written prior Valnet’s acquisition of the website. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d We shall see. Getting home after some vacation so I will take a look then. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added the sources into the article and remove HorrorGeekLife all-together. Hopefully that clears things up. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I’m still seeing a citation to horrorgeeklife (ref 27). Also, I’m still a bit skeptical of Nightmarish Conjurings. If you post about it to WP:RSN and if there’s consensus it’s a reliable source then I’ll pass the article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Nightmarish Conjurings is not a Tomatometer-approved publication. Reviews from this publication only count toward the Tomatometer® when written by the following Tomatometer-approved critic(s): Caitlin Kennedy, DarkSkyLady, Dev Shea, Dolores Quintana, Jessica Scott, Julieann Stipidis, Kellie Haulotte, Lindsay Traves, Michelle Swope, Molly Henery, Sarah Musnicky, Shannon McGrew."
Since they have approved Scott and McGrew, this should be sufficient. As for HorrorGeekLife, I have replaced it with a source from the festival itself. Paleface Jack (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps start a discussion at WT:FILM and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horror as to its reliability, just to be sure? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, though in my previous GA article I have used the site with the approved authors and were okayed and the article was passed. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over Nightmarish Conjurings and my GA article for Possum, the source is reliable within the parameters of GA and the authors cited in this article are recognized as certified (and reliable) reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that per WP:ROTTENTOMATOES, there is no consensus on whether their "Top Critics" are generally reliable. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Reviewers tracked by Rotten Tomatoes are not automatically reliable for their reviews. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because of that, I would really need to see better evidence of reliability given that their about section is a single sentence with no posted editorial team, editorial polices, or any evidence of editorial control (making the source WP:QS). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over it, and some of the controversy McGrew has had even though she is founder of Nightmarish Conjurings (a Horror Fanzine), I will remove those for now cause they seem a little off center compared to the other sources. Paleface Jack (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lake_Michigan_Monster/GA1&oldid=1235606904"