Talk:One Day at HorrorLand/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 01:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

On first pass, this looks pretty good, though I see a few issues that may need to be addressed. I also made some tweaks as I went; feel free to revert any with which you disagree. Thanks again for your work on this!

It's a bit scanty on secondary sources, but a Highbeam search didn't turn up much beyond what you have here. One review of the graphic novel that might be helpful:

"Three tales of middle-school horror have been adapted from the ubiquitous, long-running Goosebumps series into graphic novel format. Jill Thompson (Scary Godmother) reworks a family's terrifying trip to a haunted amusement park in "One Day at Horrorland" with frenetic lines and mismatched panel sizing." "Destined to be a hit with the "tween" crowd, this collection offers fast-paced versions of the well-known tales... Not quite as chilling as some of the entries in Creepy Creatures, the first book in the series, this volume has the right dash of intrigue, mystery and thrills for a younger audience. "

Stine, R.L. Goosebumps graphix; terror trips, vol. 2. Kliatt May 1, 2007 | Feigelman, Jennifer [1]

"A comic adaptation of the book" -- ambiguous if this is comic as in funny or "comic book"; if the latter, I think the word comic could simply be omitted.
My understanding is that Amazon isn't to be used as a source in Wikipedia articles, both for reliability reasons and to avoid commercial promotion. I'd suggest simply removing these two citations; they're not the kind of information that requires inline citation under GA criterion 2b in any case.
Placing the "episode cast" subsection a few paragraphs after discussion of the episodes seems needlessly confusing. Also, TV.com isn't a reliable source, unfortunately. Is the episode listed at IMDB?
"The VHS release of the television special " -- was it a special? I thought it just appeared as two episodes of the regular series
Can no reviews of the original book be found? -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I will fix your concerns. I couldn't find any reviews of the original book which isn't surprising. It is notable, but it is part of a series which R. L. Stine wrote quickly. He released one to two Goosebumps books a month and many of them managed to become bestsellers because of children enjoying them, but it seems to me that adults didn't take enough notice of them to bother writing reviews. Most of the Goosebumps books, in any of its incarnations, are not notable. SL93 (tahlk) 17:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added the graphic novel review.
I removed comic.
I removed the two Amazon references.
I put the episode cast in its own section.
I replaced the two TV.com references with IMDb.
I changed "special" to "episodes". SL93 (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put the episode information and the cast list together. SL93 (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the reviewer, but anyway, I'm not sure how reliable IMDb is as a source for the cast list and release date. I know of a couple of instances where IMDb included release date/cast list info for films that have never existed. Wouldn't the DVD or VHS be a better source for this info? Also, the title of the book is One Day at HorrorLand, with a capital L, according to the publisher, Scholastic.[2] Fearstreetsaga (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would then have to have access to the VHS or DVD. I should not have to get either one of them just because of someone mentioning two problematic issues with IMDb. IMDb is frequently, as well as commonly, used as a source for the cast and air dates. SL93 (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is commonly used as a source does not mean it is reliable. One of the problems with using IMDb is that its use is disputed. WP:Citing IMDb suggests there is dispute in using IMDb to cite crew lists and release dates, and WP:External_links/Perennial_websites#IMDb states it should generally not be used as a reliable source. WP:RS/IMDB states "[t]he use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing is considered unacceptable and strongly discouraged", since IMDb content is user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation and rumor. WP:BIO also says IMDb is not considered credible since their pages are mass-edited with little oversight.

Quite frankly, the source of information for a lot of their content, including the release date, is ambiguous. That, compounded with the fact that the content on the site is largely user-generated, creates the perception that the content there is unreliable. A lot of their content has little oversight, so entries such as the 1999 entry on Superstitious, which has been on IMDb from 2008 or earlier, appear. The Superstitious film was never released, as verified by R. L. Stine.

What I'm suggesting here is that a source that is more reliable and not disputed be used in place of a source whose reliability is questionable. Sources of higher quality trump questionable sources. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is commonly used as a source including in Featured Articles. If you don't want IMDb as a source in articles, I would suggest getting consensus first and then start a mass-removal in the hundreds of articles. SL93 (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will not spend money to rent or buy the release. However, I am completely fine with you spending your money to fix your own concern. SL93 (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't have time to respond in more detail here tonight--Mrs. Khazar and I somewhat unexpectedly made an offer to buy a house today!--but I don't consider this an issue for GA purposes. A cast list does not fall under the type of claims that need citation under criterion 2b, so a weak source or no source would be equally fine. I'll try to complete the review in the next 1-3 days; sorry for the wait. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking around and found a couple sites that could be used to replace IMDb as a reference for the release dates of the TV episodes: [3][4]. As for the cast list, couldn't the TV episodes themselves be used a reference? I can definitely verify they include closing credits with this information. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If no one has any objections to this, I'll go ahead and replace the references accordingly. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care as long as it's referenced. SL93 (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool. I've went ahead and made the change. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which reference did The book was also adapted into a board game titled Goosebumps One Day at HorrorLand Game, which was released by Milton Bradley Company. come from? maclean (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It was sourced to Amazon, but the reviewer said that couldn't be used, and said that it didn't need to be referenced under the Good Article criteria. SL93 (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be sourced easily with this source, which is not user edited. SL93 (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have sourced the board game. SL93 (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, to be clear, only the board game's game play description can be edited. If someone wants to add information about the game play, besides that it involves rolling dice to move, it would need to be referenced with something else. SL93 (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure Khazar knows, GA criteria 2 requires all content be referenced (verifiable), though not all info requires inline citations. See this. maclean (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Pass as GA