Talk:Let's Scare Jessica to Death/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Abryn (talk · contribs) 23:44, 15 October 2019 (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 (reference section): 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 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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I noticed that the budget is mentioned in the infobox, but nowhere in the article itself.
I also notice that there are actors listed who do not have any details about the casting process and are not mentioned in the Casting section outside of the box. Are there any details on the casting of Heyman, O'Connor, Corbett, or Mason?
I also noticed other information in the infobox, namely the editor and production company (which I assume is based on this movie, which would be an interesting tidbit to mention).
Is there anymore information on box office returns or home video sales, aside from the early ones?
I noticed that there is no release date for the Blu-ray release listed. Is there a specific date that can be listed on the article?
I think it's worth mentioning that it is slated for a Blu-ray release in the lead, or perhaps a single sentence mentioning the home video formats on which it has been released.
I think the biggest issue, but not remotely insurmountable, is that a lot of the Reception section could be paraphrased better rather than taking the quotes wholesale.

Otherwise it's a very good article, interesting read too. I'll be checking on sources and the like soon so I can give a thorough, final review (pending any changes of course). - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 00:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Abryn: I've addressed several of your concerns above (budget and production company being included in prose, home video history in lead, date of upcoming Blu-ray, trimming quotes from reviews), but I'm at a loss for the additional casting information and box office results--these are two areas where I've been unable to find sufficient information. I've scoured articles via Newspapers.com and only found the opening week figure that is included in the infobox. --Drown Soda (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The casting is a bit iffy, and I personally would suggest dropping the box entirely. I won't fail based on that though, everything else looks solid. Nice job with the article. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 00:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Abryn:, thanks a bunch—it turns out the stars somehow aligned, and I found a book source (Hancock on Hancock) from 2018 which profiles the director, and was able to cull some pieces of information about how the film was cast (specifically the supporting actors). I've added that information to the casting section, and it does fill out the article much better. Thanks again! --Drown Soda (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]