Talk:The Backrooms/GA1

GA Review

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.

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

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 00:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks interesting! I will get to this later today (UTC-wise). ツLunaEatsTuna (💬)— 00:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fun read! Okay, I have placed this article on hold for now and have left some comments below. Please ping me once you have addressed my concerns so that I can know when to respond. Thanks, ツLunaEatsTuna (💬)— 06:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done most of these: I'm only still figuring out the spotcheck.
- Prose #3: the Vice article only mentions r/Backrooms and its member count. For all we know, it might've been created earlier and been repurposed (unlikely, but Redditors have done so before). As for its purpose, it's pretty obvious to the reader.
- Prose #6 and #7: Linked wikt entry for its definition "The backstory created around a fictional universe." As text says, some sources say the Backrooms was the beginning of liminal spaces and others only an offshoot, so I changed the caption to say "associated with".
- Formatting #1: I thought that archived pages didn't need retrieval dates, but I haven't found any policy for this and I'm probably wrong.
— VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 08:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LunaEatsTuna: Done Thanks for the review! — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 08:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the hasty response! Proses #3, #6 and #7 are good. As for formatting #1 it is not that big of a deal, though why not archive all of the URLs just to be safe in case any of them die? Anyways, per your changes implemented I am satisfied enough to pass this fantastic article for GA status. Congrats! ツLunaEatsTuna (💬)— 15:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio check

No concerns. Quotations used in-line with WP:COPYQUOTE.

Files

All images used are relevant, good quality and copyright-free:

File:Backrooms model.jpg: CC-BY-SA 4.0;

File:Lorain High School hallway.jpg: CC-BY-SA 2.0.

Prose

"horror shorts by YouTuber Kane Parsons" – unlink YouTuber as WP:OVERLINKING; linking YouTube is enough.
Wikilink thread to conversation threading.
"on subreddits such as r/creepypasta and later r/backrooms." – maybe note that r/backrooms was created in response to and specifically for the Backrooms.
The sentence starting "Happy Mag noted in particular two other levels" is cited to two sources.
"Wikis hosted on FANDOM" – change to "Wikis hosted on Fandom" as its official name (not stylisation).
"dedicated to the Backrooms lore was established." – could lore be wikilinked to somewhere or some context added for readers unfamiliar with what lore means on the Internet?
The body says "The Backrooms has been cited as the origin of liminal spaces" whilst the image caption reads "The Backrooms' popularity was inspired by the Internet trend of liminal spaces," seeming to contradict one another.
"ABC News and Le Monde compared it" – recommend "ABC News and Le Monde have compared it"
I would remove the sentence starting "Parsons agreed, describing" because, despite directing a film on the backrooms, his opinion as a creative seems less noteworthy than a professor IMO. Alternatively, the sentence could perhaps be moved to § YouTube.
"Praised by the fandom, it currently" – avoid currently as ambiguous; use "As of [Month] [Year]" instead. Also:
Recommend changing to "the video has over". Additionally:
I would merge the line about it being praised by the fandom to the below sentence, something like "The short was praised by the fandom and received positive reviews from critics."
"while Dread Central and Nerdist compared it" – change to "while Dread Central and Nerdist positively compared it" – at least I believe that is what they mean by it?
"became popular on YouTube due to his series." – recommend "became popular on YouTube as a result of his series."
"positively reviewed for its atmosphere despite its short length." – recommend "positively reviewed for its atmosphere despite criticism for its short length."
"depiction of the extended lore" – same concern regarding lore as above.
Remove SCP Foundation from § See also as it is mentioned in the body.

Refs

Spotcheck—no concerns with refs 1, most of 2, 7, 10, 20 or 24. But:

Neither refs 2c nor 4 verify ""originalists", fans who prefer the original Backrooms, and "expansionists", who continue to expand the Backrooms with new levels."

Formatting:

A couple of refs are missing retrieval dates.
For ref 26, use the Type=video parameter instead.
Is a more specific publication date available for ref 30?

Other

Further reading, section formatting, categories and external links good.

For the WP:SHORTDESC, is Fictional not redundant?
Recommend adding template:use mdy dates.
Recommend adding template:use X English.
Please add WP:ALT text if you can.

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.