Talk:The Rocky Horror Picture Show/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Onel5969 (talk · contribs) 20:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On the whole I only have a few issues, and if addressed, would support for GA. First, the opening two sentences need to be reworked, as they read a bit clumsy, particularly the opening sentence. Second, most of the information in the lead is supported by citations in other places, but the comment regarding 1940s through the 1970s isn't. I think you need to cite that, as many folks might think it should 1940s and 1950s. I thought the plot synopsis was very well done. In the cast list, I don't know if you need the little character blurbs following the character names. I know that's how imdb did it, but I'm not sure it's needed here. The rest of the article is tight, and this seemed to distract me for some reason. In the production section, I'd like to know why filming in August made it harsh. Under reception I think you should break out as a special section (or maybe as a co-equal subsection under Release) the whole cult following and talking to the screen phenomena. I'd also like to see it expanded a bit, with more references to the standard lines shouted out by audiences. Not too much more, but its been so crucial to the overall success of the film, I feel it's warranted. Finally, under other projects, it is unclear exactly how Shock Wave relates to the original film. Not being familiar with it, I couldn't tell if it was based on the characters from the original film, just based in the same world as the original film, etc. You also have a dupe link to 20th Century Fox in Other Projects as well. I didn't check the references, or for paraphrasing. Anyway, that's my two cents. Hope it helps.Onel5969 (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"[T]he opening two sentences need to be reworked, as they read a bit clumsy, particularly the opening sentence"

Agreed and that is entirely my fault from a recent edit that attempted to correct what I thought was a run-on sentence, but even I don't like the result.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Edited. Let me know if that was not an improvement [1].--Mark Miller (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In the production section, I'd like to know why filming in August made it harsh".

Oh, that says autumn not August, but more details are available as the British autums are rather cold I hear and the conditions while filing were wet, cold and a little dangerous. Perhaps more of these details could be added.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad. I think you still need to augment this sentence, perhaps, "late autumn", and then specify it was weather conditions which were harsh (which I am guessing led to Sarandon's pneumonia?)

"[T]he comment regarding 1940s through the 1970s isn't [cited]".

Yes, you are correct. I am not sure if something has been removed by accident or if this was never referenced, but I do know it to be verifiable to the 1960s and may well be up to the 1970, but the 70's may be less verifiable.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have citd this claim from the 1930s to the 70s with a book reference.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Under reception I think you should break out as a special section (or maybe as a co-equal subsection under Release) the whole cult following and talking to the screen phenomena. I'd also like to see it expanded a bit, with more references to the standard lines shouted out by audiences".

I agree and have begun adding and expanding to include such, however there is not much more that I can find to reference the line delivery. What little seems to be in RS may already be covered, but only in the matter of the shouted lines. I am sure we can find more references on the audience participation but...in the past we have had some issue with non notable mentions of promotional fan cruft so to overcome this situation we split the article some years back. We can begin adding more verifiable content now and reference it with RS.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: with the changes made, I would now support it for GA, although I still want to find more references to the cult phenomenon of the audience participation at midnight shows. Onel5969 (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Working on it.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Images

I am going to take some time today to see what appropriate images can be found. I have a set of photos I took at one of the well known fan performance groups from the heyday of Rocky Horror, that are not promotional in any way as the group no longer exists and can be referenced to a reliable book source, again a concern of the past. I will also take a look at some feature articles on similar films to see what images are best used.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I think that would add a great deal to the article.Onel5969 (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also really agree that the article is a bit tight and needs some expansion with reliable sources so I am adding as much as I can to the production sections by adding sections for the title sequence, development, filming and a section on costumes. I will try to slap that out tonight. I have been looking through sources and feel confident that from what I know and what I seem to be finding to support it I can add a good deal more to broaden the scope a bit. I also found a really good source to add some of the original reviews and mentions.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to contact Dori Hartley who provided me with some wonderful shots. I will be uploading one shortly.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done

GA edits complete

For Onel5969:

Before I began the general edits the article looked like this. My last edit was this. In all I created 6 images from a large pool of sources, all of who can be referenced with reliable sources. I added the first new Non free image on the article in a while. This has multiple context to critical commentary. I expanded the body of the article with references, formatted as incline citations. I think I covered the cult phenomenon as much as possible and centered on the must heavily cited portion of the fandom. All of the images have direct context to the text. I even found a new Oakley Court image. I hope this passes GA review.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone over it briefly, and like everything you've done. I'll go over it more in depth today. Have you checked the copyright on all the pics? If so, they're brilliant. The one thing I've never checked on is to verify that there are no paraphrasing issues between your sources and the text in the article. Have you done that? I know when you go to GA or FA review, you can get hammered on that. The one issue I have with this version is that it needs copy editing. I noticed a few typos, and some grammatically incorrect sentences (e.g. scraped instead of scrapped, and "Corsets for the finally had to be dried as doubles were being used in the pool on set.") Onel5969 (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright on the images are cleared through the copyright holders such as Dori, who has a collection of photographs she owns the copyrights on, as having been released to her as "works for hire". The Garrett image was uploaded by the copyright holder, I am the copyright holder for two images, the UA Cinema in Merced and the San Francisco Strand Theatre images. The Oakley Court image was cleared through Flickr for CC licensing. I have OTRS pending for permissions on one image, only because it had been previously published on the internet on a blog and, facebook and a few fan sites. I have permission from the copyright holders and can OTRS them as well. I am just waiting on this one first. The new non-free image has a full rationale and meets Non Free Content Criteria.

One thing I did notice during the GA editathon. We are using the "Lips" poster in the Info box. I propose to change that to the original poster and move the lips poster into another section in the body of the article before FA nomination. I give'her a good copy edit.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already listed my support for GA over two weeks ago, not sure who moves it to that status, but no one else has commented... any ideas? Onel5969 (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do as the reviewer. Just edit the article's talk page and replace the template that is there now with the new pass template as follows:

Replace

{{GA nominee|03:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)|nominator=[[User:Mark Miller|Mark Miller]] ([[User talk:Mark Miller|talk]])|page=3|subtopic=Film|status=onreview|note=}}

with

You can just copy the replacement code and paste it onto the page after the old code is deleted.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Congratulations!Onel5969 (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--Mark Miller (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]