Talk:Leatherface (2017 film)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 23:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in finding a reviewer. I will look at this over the next few days and leave a review. AIRcorn (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry was without my home internet for a while, and somehow I also lost the review of this article I had started. I am back online now s hopefully can get it up again soon. AIRcorn (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

My main concerns are with the plot and reception sections. I have left some comments below the review. Not all relate to the criteria and some are just general questions. However some expand on what I have written here and will need to be addressed before i can pass the article

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Some comments below, but apart from the overuse of quotes the prose is pretty good
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Not liking the Daily Mail source. Others look OK. Twitter is sourced to one comment, but it is a secondary source and attributed so that is fair enough. My main concern is the overuse of quotes in the reception section. They are a copyright concern when used this often. It also makes it a slog to read, which is a prose issue.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Not sure about the detail on Clarice relative to the other characters, but this is a minor issue.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Looks fine to me
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Seems to be some persistent vandalism that has lead to page protection and the current dispute has a clear consensus so no issues for me here.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
One non free image with valid rational. Others seem fine and appropriate
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Holding for now

Passing now all issues dealt with. AIRcorn (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This review is labelled GA2, but I can't find GA1. Is it lost in a page move? I would like to check it if it exists.
- Helped That appears to be a glitch. A few months ago, another user started a page for a GA review, but it was deleted because something came up and they didn't have time to review the article. This should be titled GA1. If someone could move this page, that would be useful (however, it might also cause another error). Dark Knight 2149 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Vanessa Grasse could be redlinked. She is probably notable enough to have her own page one day.
- Done Dark Knight 2149 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is the eighth film in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise (TCM) Is TCM supposed to be a abbreviation for the whole franchise or just the Texas Chainsaw Massacre part.
- Resolved Yes, it is supposed to be abbreviated like that and it's an abbreviation for the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise/brand in general. The reason that it's there is because that's how the writer and other sources refer to it in exact quotes. Marvel Cinematic Universe articles use similar abbreviations. Dark Knight 2149 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't find it in the sources listed for that sentence. I don't have a problem with ussing TCM it just seems strange to place it after the franchise. It essentially means further down at Leatherface is a mentally disabled serial killer seen throughout the TCM franchise it is essentially saying "Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise franchise". Are you sure it shouldn't be "It is the eighth film in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (TCM) franchise." AIRcorn (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done Dark Knight 2149 02:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lionsgate and Millennium Films lost the rights to produce future Texas Chainsaw Massacre films because of the delay I am assuming this means the delay in releasing the film. Maybe it could be made clearer.
- Done Dark Knight 2149 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the links in the plot section seem strange. Not sure why birthday party is linked but not matriarch. Normally I would find chainsaw strange too, but in this case it is probably appropriate.
- Done I linked matriarch. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to address this concern. Dark Knight 2149 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the whole plot needs some work. I have not seen the movie and found it quite difficult to follow. It needs some streamlining. I am not sure it is useful to keep the big reveal on who Jeb is until near the end, especially as we start it with him. It felt like the beginning was a bit redundent. Some of the detail seems non-essential and just distracts from the flow. There seems to be a lot about Clarice and Ike and their importance to the story is not really clear. What is the significance of her scarred body? There is a Director Lang and a Doctor Lang, I am assuming they are the same Lang, but it is a little confusing. Some of the flow doesn't seem to make sense, how did Elizabeth end up handcuffed in the car? Why did she scream out? Who shot Clarice? See Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary for more advice.
- Done I just noticed that some crucial details were inexplicably removed from the plot by Nusrat21 while I was on Wikibreak (which is probably why it was hard to follow). I restored it to its original form, while also modifying and streamlining it. Let me know if this works. If not, I will rewrite the entire section from scratch. Dark Knight 2149 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much better. A minor point. AIRcorn (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Jedidiah crafts Hartman's and Elizabeth's flesh into a mask and dons it to a mirror as he applies lipstick. This sentence needs a copy edit
      - Done Dark Knight 2149 02:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally we should avoid the WP:Dailymail.
- Done The character information in the source is backed by the film itself, so I should be able to remove the source without issue. Dark Knight 2149 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the cast descriptions duplicate the plot
- Done Dark Knight 2149 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Lizzy section has a lot less info than the others for a key character
- Not possible That's because there isn't very much information on her character (or how the actress prepared for the role) available, outside of what was in the film itself. Believe me, I searched vigourously for sources pertaining to this film. What you have to keep in mind is that the film was shelved for over a year without any announcement, received little marketing, and then ended up going straight to V.O.D. Dark Knight 2149 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In contrast there is a lot of info on Clarice.
- Helped Yeah, oddly enough, the filmmakers were very forthcoming with BTS details on Clarice (probably because she was originally intended to be a female version of Chop Top, a fan favourite character, and because they thought about using her as a red herring for Leatherface). I divided the longer Cast and character biographies into paragraphs, and removed some of the repetition in other sections. Dark Knight 2149 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fictional Deputy Sorells Why say fictional?
- On hold An attempt to avoid WP:INUNIVERSE. Should I remove it? Dark Knight 2149 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is their a real Deputy Sorrels that we need to worry about? If not then I would as there is no confusion that we are not describing a character in a fictional movie. It seems out of place to me. AIRcorn (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done I changed it to "The character of Deputy Sorells", but I can change it to "Deputy Sorells" if you prefer. Dark Knight 2149 02:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the father of Sally Hardesty and Franklin Hardesty Would father of Sally and Franklin be better instead of using Hardesty three times? Also might need some more context as too who they are.
- Done I used the phrasing "the final girl and her brother" to avoid WP:PROTAGONIST.
The Mark Burg quote is quite long. In fact many quotes go into multiple sentences. In these cases it is usually best to paraphrase and then selectively quote. If long quotes are needed they work better in quote boxes so the flow is not interrupted so much
Needs a better intro for Sherwood.
- Done To the best of my ability. He only has a few film and TV credits to his name and isn't very prolific.
referring the project simply as Syntax is out
- Done Changed to "instead believing it to be" Dark Knight 2149 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Once Sherwood is introduced with his full name you can just use Sherwood for the remainder of his mentions
- Done Let me know if I missed any. Dark Knight 2149 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seth M. Sherwood was announced to write the film That doesn't read right.
- Not done Can you please specify the problem? Because that was when he was announced to write the film. If I change it to "Sherwood was hired to write...", that could be factually incorrect, because writers are often hired months before they're announced for a major upcoming film. Dark Knight 2149 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It just reads a little strangely to me. What about "On August 13, 2014, it was announced that Sherwood would write the film, under the title Leatherface." It does beg the question of who did the announcing. AIRcorn (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done Dark Knight 2149 20:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Julien Maury and Alexandre Bustillo were hired to direct the film,[46] who admired its distinction in narrative from the series' Same here
- Done → "...who admired how different it was from the previous installments." Dark Knight 2149 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In March and April 2015, Sam Strike, James Bloor, Stephen Dorff, and Jessica Madsen joined the cast, respectively I am not sure respectively works with so many people over uneven dates
- Done Dark Knight 2149 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
cars modeled after that of the period after that of the?
- Done Does "Cars modeled after the time period" work? Dark Knight 2149 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
with the creation of Leatherface's first flesh-mask cited by Sherwood as his personal favourite Not sure what that means
- Helped The kill resulting in the creation of Leatherface's first flesh mask; the person he made his mask out of. I reworded it to "with the one resulting in Leatherface's flesh mask cited as...". Because Sherwood was light on spoilers in the source, it's impossible to know if he meant Hal Hartman's death or Elizabeth's death. The mask was half of Hartman's face and half of Elizabeth's face. Remember that it was cited much earlier in the article that Leatherface wears masks of human skin. It's what he is iconic for, next to the chainsaw. Dark Knight 2149 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay. Still a bit vague, but I follow now. Not sure how to make it clearer in the article though. AIRcorn (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
building a realistic cow carcass Is this relevant to the plot? I don't remember reading about it, but if most of the budget was spent on it it might warrant a mention. If not there here maybe?
- No action Not enough for it to be mentioned in the Plot. It was just something that happened briefly while the characters were on the run from Hartman. It's relevant to the Filming, since that's where a huge chunk of the budget went. Dark Knight 2149 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still wondering if some more clarification could be added here. It is interesting to me at least that a large portion of the budget went into what seems a minor scene. AIRcorn (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done Building a life-like prop of a human or animal corpse and making it look real can be quite expensive. For instance, a lifelike corpse for a dead character was used in Saw IV, and it took a huge chunk of that film's budget. I reworded it to make it seem a little more clear to try and avoid confusion for readers.
Some repetitive stuff in continuity. It might be better to move some of this around and condense it some. Thinking specifically of Chop Top, but there may be others.
- Done Let me know if I missed something. Dark Knight 2149 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
afraid that they wouldn't make back their investment after another film underperformed Not clear how this relates to Leatherface?
- Checked It means another film made by the studio underperformed, causing them to get nervous about releasing Leatherface. Sherwood isn't the only person who believes this, as news sources similarly reported that the underwhelming box office of Blair Witch caused Lionsgate to get nervous. This sort of thing isn't entirely unheard-of, as Paramount reportedly had similar reasoning for cancelling Friday the 13th: Part 13 (which was supposed to come out 13 October 2017). I agree that this reasoning for cancelling/shelving the two films is dumb, but apparently the Hollywood suits don't know any better. Dark Knight 2149 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused by what the January 2017 release means. Te long quotes don't really help. Can it be summarised better.
- Helped It means pretty much what it says. I paraphrased the second quote, shortened the first one, and reworded some of it. Dark Knight 2149 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
and wide distribution via Video on demand Does Video need to be capitilised?
- Done Dark Knight 2149 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many quotes in the Critical response section. See Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections for advice on how to make these sections read better.
- Done Dark Knight 2149 21:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The referencing formatting has some article titles in all caps. Is this intentional?
- Resolved Yes. The titles that are in ALL CAPS are only the ones that are in ALL CAPS in the original sources. Dark Knight 2149 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am pretty sure we can make references into a consistent style. However this is not a GA requirement so no biggy. AIRcorn (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done I'll went ahead and reworked all of the ALL CAPS titles. Dark Knight 2149 20:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is coming along nicely. Let me know when you have the reception section done and I will finish this up. AIRcorn (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy that this meets the Good Article criteria so will pass it. There is a "that that" in the reception section. Although grammatically correct it is a bit of a distraction. Not a GA issue, but more a general comment. All in all a nice article deserving of being ranked Good. Congratulations, and I am again sorry you had to wait 9 months for someone to review it. AIRcorn (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]