Talk:The Incredible Melting Man/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC) I will begin review shortly.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In order to pass a GA nomination the article must meet the following standards:

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

1. B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

1. B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

1. C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

1. B. Focused:

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

2. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

3. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales

1. B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Reviewer notes:

• Lede lacks proper wikilinks.
• Some of the prose does not read well and contain puffery or weasel words and does not comply with MoS.

"He must consume human flesh in order to survive, and his strength and fury only grow as his murderous rampage continues". Seems less than encyclopedic.

"Future Academy Award winning make-up artist Rick Baker provided the make-up effects for the film, which were noted for their goriness" That seems to editorialize. If he had not yet received accolades from the Academy at this time, is it notable enough for mention here? Also, how was the make up noted for goriness? The sentence should be simplified. "The gory make-up effects were designed by artist Rick Baker". The production section is fine with the mention as written but the this is not needed in the lede.

• There are some spacing problems in the prose that need to be corrected. A good copy edit is required.
• The prose within the "Plot" section contain unnecessary descriptions that do not provide plot develoment and seem to have been added for sheer impact. Unencyclopedic filler. "West comes across a fisherman in the woods and kills him, ripping off his head and throwing it into a stream, where it eventually falls down a waterfall and cracks open in a bloody mess " That could be much simlified as well as the entire section.
• "The Incredible Melting Man has a very similar plot to that of First Man into Space (1959), which is also about an astronaut who turns into a hideous monster after an accident in space. Some sources have described the film as a remake of First Man into Space." Also the same problem of over use of the title of the film itself to closely together. Repetitive.
• The overall prose in general is very poor and may require additional editor input to pass GA. There are editors available for assistance with Project Film that can help.
• There does appear to be some OR problems. Please provide refences and inline citations for all claims that are likely to be disputed. To say that the film is an homage of a genre without a reference constitutes original research.
• "Actor Alex Rebar wore masks that simulated melting flesh throughout the film, and his hands and feet were fitted with goo-like substances that dropped off as he walked, giving the impression of the body falling apart" Masks and not "appliances"? If this is true, perhaps it needs to explain further. "Goo like substance" is simply not encyclopedic. This may well be in the reference but doesn't work for the article.
• While the article is clearly quite broad in scope it does need more focus. Far too many statement such as this:"Some reports indicated that part of the reason for the lack of make-up effect stages was because actor Alex Rebar was impatient and uncooperative with the extensive make-up sessions required for the effects" What reports? Also...the section already explains the reason for the lack of stages in the make-up effects, so this seems very much to contradict previous claims.
• Aside from the poster in the info box, all images lack suffeciant "Fair Use" explanations. "Yes" or "No" is not enough. You must expalin in detail what the resolution is and what portion is used. Also, you have included two screenshots from other films which is simply innapropriate for "Fair Use". They cannot be used in this article.
• A very large number of references yet a great deal of the claims go unsourced.

At this time the article simply has far to much wrong to pass GA assesment. Please seek other input from the project editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)