Talk:S&Man/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 07:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2012 (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.	See below
	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.	See below
	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).	Fine
	2c. it contains no original research.	Fine
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	See below
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Fine...
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Fine
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Per definition. Only constructive edits
	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.	Fine. One image, valid FUR
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Only image is a poster, for identification
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Comments

1

1a

General

Flow needs a bit of work, we're jumping from idea to idea here.
If you provide more context, the flow should come naturally. Missing information seems to be what's killing the prose here.

Lede

"It contains interviews with indie horror filmmakers and a scripted plot that comes into focus in the film's second half." ... "He interviewed experts in the horror and voyeur film industry. The experts include Carol J. Clover, a sexologist, and a forensic psychologist. Three faux snuff film directors, Eric Marcisak, Bill ZeBub, and Fred Vogel, are featured prominently. The film also features a fictional subplot that tries to make viewers question if Marcisaks' films are truly snuff." - If we're giving a summary, it should be in one place.

Plot

Plots don't have to be referenced, so you could just watch the film and write the plot yourself. That would ensure a better flow.
Also, would "Summary" work better?

Production

"his neighborhood " - Whose?
"the three other directors that would later become subjects of his documentary" - Who?
"J. T. Petty argued that most mainstream horror films "are rooted in the same voyeuristic leanings which sell such freakish fetish videos"" - Relevance?

Home video

This should probably be split into several sentences.

Film festivals

"The film's release at the Toronto International Film Festival caused controversy including online" - Unclear. Controversy including online?

Reception

[insert name here] said... - A bit repetitive. More variety, perhaps?

1b

We should not start #Production with {{quote}}. {{Quote box}} is probably better.
The section "Film references" is too short to warrant its own section. I'd suggest either developing it further or merging it with #Production

2

2a

Compare current FN2 and FN13. Is Dread Central the publisher (and therefore normal text) or the work (and therefore italicised)? Might want to double check the other sources.
Just a comment, you should standardise whether or not you link the publisher/work.
What makes Dread Central a reliable source?

3

3a

It never saw a theatrical release? Has that been mentioned anywhere? When were the film festivals held? When were the DVD and Blu-Ray released?
A bit more about the works of the subjects
Film references section should really be expanded.
"Eric Rost's S&MAN video series" - A bit of context, for us who don't know anything about the series?
The Complete S&Man – Episode 11 - Perhaps an explanation on what it is
"Midnight Madness" - Which is?
South by Southwest - which is held where?
What kind of controversy occurred in Toronto?
Apparently Time did a review here (I like the quote from another director: "JT, you sick fuck!"... shame its not in a more reliable source).

Spotchecks

Based on this revision of the article.

FN1

FN1a: Verified, no close paraphrasing
FN1b: Verified, no close paraphrasing
FN1c: Verified, no close paraphrasing

FN7

FN7a: Verified, quoted

FN7b: Verified, quoted

FN7c: Verified, no close paraphrasing

FN7d: Verified, acceptable paraphrasing

FN13: Verified, no close paraphrasing

FN18: Verified, no close paraphrasing

Spotchecks are fine.

Further discussion

Article on hold for completeness, references, and language Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I just left some comments on the peer review, mainly focused on prose. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a lot of changes. Can you take a look at them? SL93 (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K, looking a little more complete. Before we worry about grammar, let's make sure the content will be fairly stable (i.e. we aren't expecting any more major additions):

Summary: I've never watched the film, so I'm not sure, but I'd expect a bit more plot summary to be included. How the interviews are weaved in with the story etc. Don't be minimalist; if we haven't seen the film, it's easier to cut extraneous information than add pertinent stuff. See Sang Pencerah or ? for some of my GAs which may help.
Remember to keep the flow logical. Why tell us the contents of the home releases first then the release date? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also the lede will need a bit of expansion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I expanded the lead a bit and added two paragraphs to the summary about how the interviews featured in the film. I watched most of the film, but couldn't get through it. SL93 (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is getting much better, but for a GA we expect to have the climax of the film as well. If it's too disgusting to watch, perhaps find something about it online. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added the main points of the ending from this source - http://www.offscreen.com/index.php/phile/essays/documenting_horror/. "Totaro received his PhD in Film & Television from the University of Warwick (UK) and is a part-time lecturer in Film Studies at Concordia University (Montreal, Canada). He has published on recent Asian cinema, the cinema of Andrei Tarkovsky, the horror genre and is currently preparing a manuscript entitled Time and the Long Take in Narrative Cinema." SL93 (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll give it a good copyedit after breakfast / after work, depending on how much time I have Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Alright. Thanks. SL93 (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a {{cn}} tag. Also, since Petty is a player in the film as well I think he should be in the cast section. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I referenced that to DVD Verdict and I will add Petty to the cast. SL93 (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I have to go to work now. I'll finish my copyedit when I get back (not anytime soon though) Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering when you are going to copy edit the article. I'm fine with whenever you decide, I just want to be ready for any corrections I might still need to make. SL93 (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished and am pretty fine on prose (I'd suggest having Mark take another look at it, though). Just wondering why the Time review was not included... that's a fairly major magazine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I missed that. Sorry. SL93 (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I took care of the Time review. SL93 (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I took another look at it, I think it's just about ready for promotion. A couple things I saw that I couldn't resolve via copyediting:
"Petty suspects that Eric actually kills women for his snuff films, a suspicion further exasperated when Rost says that he will relay Petty's contact information to the women instead of giving their contact information to Petty." I assume you meant "exacerbated" rather than "exasperated"?
"In the beginning of the film, clips show the directors and Clover commenting on a horror film that is not shown onscreen or mentioned." This sentence seems to contradict itself, if it's commented on then isn't it mentioned? Mark Arsten (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant that the title isn't mentioned. I will fix that. Crisco added exasperated, but I think that exacerbated is what he meant. SL93 (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed those two things. I hope that Crisco is fine with me changing the word. SL93 (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no problem with that... wow, this article has changed. I'll take a final look through after work. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that looks acceptable to me. Passing Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]