Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Squirm/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 15 August 2020 [1].

Squirm

[edit]
Nominator(s): GamerPro64 16:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Late in the evening of September 29, 1975, a sudden electrical storm struck a rural sea coast area of Georgia. Power lines, felled by high winds, sent hundreds of thousands of volts surging into the muddy ground, cutting off all electricity to the small, secluded town of Fly Creek. During the period that followed the storm, the citizens of Fly Creek experienced what scientists believe to be one of the most bizarre freaks of nature ever recorded. This is the story...."

That is the opening text to the movie Squirm, a movie about killer worms. And what would seem to be a hokey concept that would eventually be a subject on Mystery Science Theater 3000, it ended up being a much more interesting topic to cover. Mostly funded by Broadway executives, this movie also caused the state of Maine to have their local fishing industry devastated by the lack of worms that were instead used for the movie. And while not well received at the time, it has seen be the subject of analysis by critics for its place in 1970s "revenge of nature" films.

And I think this article has what it takes to become a Featured Article in its current status. If nothing else better to say, Squirm. GamerPro64 16:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments by Andrzejbanas

[edit]

Some information in the infobox is not anywhere in the article. specifically, the production company, the cinematographer, original theatrical run time, and its production country. Also, per MOS:FILM standards, we usually say "film" in an article, not "movie". Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whups thank you. The theatrical runtime can be sourced in the infobox if its hard to include in the prose. I usually squeeze it in to a release section like Squirm was distributed theatrically by American International Pictures with a __ minute running time." It's more or less for having the running time in the infobox reflect an original release running time opposed to any "uncut" or "extended" version that may be on home video. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't know where to mention its production comapny and not sure the point of adding the production country. Not sure what that means either. GamerPro64 19:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Production company indicates a company or team formed that funded the film project. In this case, this one mentioned is a one off for the film in question. if you can't find a way to properly fit it in the prose, I would cite it in the infobox. the AFI database should handle it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added the AFI source in the infobox. GamerPro64 04:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the release section, you state it was shown at the Cannes Film Festival, was this at the Cannes Market, or as part of the festival? Cause those are two different things entirely.
I think it might mean the festival. I cant find any evidence to the contrary. GamerPro64 03:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it on this section [2] here, so I'm assuming its the market. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If thats the case I cannot find any sources saying that. The AFI link sources an article from the Daily Variety and I do not have access to the article. It just does not seem to have been talked about. What if I change the sentence to it being shown during Cannes? GamerPro64 16:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably for the best. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When describing the films the editor has worked on, those names aren't going to mean anything to anyone who is not familiar with the history of these films or their reputation. Are they known for having high quality editing or are we just trying to say he's had a prolific career here?
I did it for the latter but I removed it from the article. I thought I read somewhere that Lieberman hired the editor because of his work for Performance but I cannot find a reliable source for that. GamerPro64 03:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would try and separate contemporary and retrospective reviews of the film to show how its grown or shrunk in reception at the time. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I moved one review to the second paragraph as the second paragraph is more retrospective. GamerPro64 03:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would use a source other than blu-ray.com for its release date. Blu-ray.com information on release dates and technical details are all supplied by its users. I know, as I've done it myself! :) Might be a good starting off point to find another source though. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the source. GamerPro64 03:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would split up the page sources from Fangoria. It appears to be going over two pages, when sources from books should be limited to one and two pages. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which Fangoria link? There are two in the article. GamerPro64 15:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know which source you mean now. I don't see where that is a requirement for magazines. GamerPro64 18:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would split it up so it doesn't get tagged for going above and beyond. Doesn't really hurt to get specific. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean getting tagged for going above and beyond? When I nominated Soultaker I didn't get flak for one of my sources being multiple pages. GamerPro64 03:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas: With the Fangoria link nonwithstanding, would you say the article meets the standards for FA or oppose its nomination? GamerPro64 22:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow response. I might change the Leonard Maltin review to just say its from his book. His book has several editors, so I don't think it's just him reviewing the films in those books. Having trouble finding confirmation. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to the book. GamerPro64 18:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As all my suggestions have been met, I support this article for as FA-status. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I don't think I'll have time to do a full review, but on looking through I think the reception section needs some work. See WP:RECEPTION for some ideas; you have the "A said B" problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copyedit as I go; please revert if you disagree with anything.

  • The power line lands in wet mud and starts to electrocute the worms underneath: to electrocute means to injure or kill, so I think this is probably not the right word.
  • Roger's shipment of 100,000 bloodworms and sandworms escape: from the back of the truck?
  • Mick deduces the worms killed Beardsley but cannot figure out the reason: I don't know what the second half of this means. Do you mean "cannot figure out why they attacked him"?
  • producers Edgar Lansbury and Joseph Beruh, who bought Squirm in 1975 and invested $470,000[b] of their own money into the project. They read the script in the summer of 1975, after which the project moved very fast. Seems out of sequence. Can we reorder this to follow the chronology? Manasse shows them the script, they read it, then they buy it and the project moves fast; they invest their own money. Currently we say they buy it before we say they read it.
    • Reworked it.
  • This was the only film produced by The Squirm Company. Can we say who The Squirm Company are first? I assume Lansbury and Beruh formed The Squirm Company to make the movie, but we should say that if so.
  • You have "R.A. Dow" at one point, and "Richard A. Dow" at another; might as well be consistent. And it seems he is an unknown, perhaps even new to movies, since his name is not linked and he had to study acting? Is there any information about how he got the part?
  • making the sound effects for the worms using balloons and shears: I'd love to know what sort of sound this produces. Any way to describe it? Squeaking, snipping, popping?
  • The re-edited film was used for a television version: so the original edit, with more gore and the shower scene, was released in theatres? Or this is the same version as released in theatres? I think it's the same as the theatre version; if so I'd make it "was also used for the television version".
  • I see some problems with the prose in the reception paragraphs; some said-bookisms, a capital letter after a semicolon; "gave exception" should be "took exception". I'll finish the rest of the review and try to do a copyedit pass on this section.
  • This genre began in the early 1970s with films like Frogs, Night of the Lepus, and Sssssss, leading on to Jaws, Squirm, Empire of the Ants, and Kingdom of the Spiders. What do you mean by "leading on to"? What puts a film in the first half of this list rather than the second-half? If the source characterizes them differently (e.g. "second wave") we should say so; if it's just to break up a long list, the list is probably too long. And the long list of movies in the next sentence is definitely too long. I would pick just a couple of examples for each clause. And then we have yet another long list of movies mentioned by Muir. If there's some reason to include all the ones Muir mentions, put the full list in a footnote.
  • These films—depicting attitudes and fears prevalent at the time—reflect the public's unease about what Muir called "man's continued pillaging and pollution of the Earth": OK on the second half, but the films depict attitudes and fears prevalent at the time? That seems much too strong; the films depict horrific attacks by natural entities; I don't think that reflects attitudes of the day. What exactly does the source say that supports this? At a minimum I'd attribute it to Muir inline, if we keep it.
  • The Robin Wood source is dated 2018; Wood died in 2009, so I assume this is a collection of essays written before he died, and some quick Googling suggests that's the case. A minor point, but it would be nice to cite the original article or essay, in order to get the original date into the citation. You can ignore this comment if you don't have the source to hand at the moment, or if it doesn't indicate the original publication of the essay.

I'm going to stop there. I've just read through the rest of the article. Up to the "Reception" section, the issues I've raised above are pretty minor and no doubt can be easily fixed, but the prose from that point on does not seem to me to be FA quality. I'm sorry to say this, since it's been two months since I first commented here, but I never planned to do a full review. I initially commented because I think WP:RECEPTION is important (well, I wrote it, so I would think that) and the article's reception section needed improvement. It's better than it was, but here are some points, from those paragraphs or further below. I'll include in this list some picky stuff I'd normally fix while copyediting. I haven't tried to make this an exhaustive list of the issues.

  • Critique of the special effects was mixed: The verb is wrong; it should probably be "critiques...were mixed", but you could fix it some other ways, such as "Opinion...was mixed".
  • Said-bookisms include "stated", "commented", "remarked", "gave", "considered"", "believed", and others. Not all of these are bad -- "considered" and "believed" are often better choices than "said" because they indicate an opinion -- but there are too many. "Garnered" is another word to avoid; it's not strictly a said-bookism, but it should be avoided for the same reason -- it sticks out like a sore thumb as an unusual usage, rather than just communicating.
  • Use of "noted" for an opinion; "noted" implies something is factual.
  • The reviewer gave exception to: should be "took exception to".
  • The reception section initially had an "A said B" problem (defined in WP:RECEPTION); that's much improved but there are still traces of it.
    • I don't know where else its at.
  • Wood also expressed disappointment with the film's ending because he felt the survival of Mick, Geri, and Alma counteracts the film's logic. A couple of things here. This could be done more concisely -- e.g. "Wood was disappointed with"; and "counteracts" is the wrong word here -- I think something like "contradicts" is what's intended.
  • to make it abundant of their "bigger-than-life and almost mythic" character flaws: this is not the right way to use "abundant"; I think perhaps "abundant with" is meant, but I'm not sure.

Oppose. Sorry; I really hate to do this right at the end of a long review, but the prose needs work, and I think it's more than the surface polish a copyeditor can provide. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • I would simplify the following sentence, (Makeup artist Rick Baker provided special effects for the film using prosthetic makeup for the first time in his career.), by just saying "prosthetics" to avoid repeating the word "makeup" twice in the same sentence.
  • I would mention the split between contemporary and retrospective reviews in the lead.
  • I am assuming an exact production budget and box office are either not known or simply unavailable, but I just want to make sure that I am correct.
  • In the first sentence of the "Plot" section, I would link Georgia to be consistent with the lead where the state is linked.
  • I think a link for worm farm would be helpful. It may just be me, but I have actually never heard of this concept or phrase before reading this article.
  • I think this part, (The original filming location and setting was planned for New England), could be simplified by removing "planned for" as I do not think it is needed.
  • I am uncertain if the United States link is entirely necessary in this part, (who released it theatrically in the United States on July 14, 1976,) since I think a majority of readers would be familiar with the country.
  • This is more of a clarification question, but do we know what was removed from the film to meet the PG rating?
  • I have seen some editors/reviewers say they dislike having the Rotten Tomatoes score in the prose, specifically for a film released prior to the website being founded and for something without a "critics consensus". I am not saying you should remove it, as I am indifferent about the topic, but I just wanted to raise this to your attention.
  • I will leave the discussion on the "Reception" subsection to Mike Christie as he is more qualified than I am for that. I do agree with his suggestion, though I think the separation between contemporary and retrospective reviews is a good idea.
  • For the Mystery Science Theater 3000 part, I would clarify that Lieberman did not care about "goofing on the movie" (according to the citation) and was more angry about MGM than anyone with MST3K. This is conveyed in this part, (saying it cheapened the value of the movie), but I still think it would be helpful to emphasize his criticism was not directed at the show to avoid potential misinterpretations.
  • I would avoid Wikipedia:SHOUTING (i.e. having titles in all caps) in references 32 and 35.
  • The formatting for AllMovie is inconsistent in references 11 and 19. In 11, it is not in italics, and in 19, it is in italics. In either case, the M should be capitalized.
  • Random question, but is there any information on the song that plays over the credits?

I must admit this is 100% not my kind of movie, but this article was very engaging and genuinely enjoyed learning about the film. I am surprised this FAC has not received more attention. This is what I noticed from my first read-through. Once everything is addressed, I will go through the article again to make sure I give everything the proper time and attention. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support this for promotion based on the prose. I will leave the "Reception" subsection to the more experienced Mike Christie, but I do have one quick suggestion. It may be beneficial to start new paragraphs on the critical reviews for Jeff Liberman's direction and the less than positive retrospective reviews, but that is just a suggestion. Either way, have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies for adding another message here, but if you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC about a very different type of film. I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Aoba47 (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Hi, just a heads-up that this is getting on a bit without much in evidence of consensus to promote -- I'll add to the FAC Urgents list and aim to revisit in the coming week to see how things are going. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like to see a comprehensive review from outside the movie project, and I'm not seeing a source review either. I'm close to archiving this - it's been on the urgents list for over three weeks now and hasn't really gotten much traction or a source review either. Giving it a day or so but... --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to forgo waiting two weeks to renominate? I think this almost had a chance to become a Featured Article but the lack of eyes killed it. GamerPro64 19:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GamerPro, I am working from the bottom of the list, and I would be willing to do an in-depth here (on first glance article appears well prepared for FAC), but I cannot get to this probably until the weekend or early next week, and you will have to pester me so I don’t forget :) If the Coords want to give you another week, I can get to it; elsewise, pester my talk page to work off-FAC, as I lose track of those darn pingie-thingies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good for a bit if Sandy thinks it's at least within range on a quick glance. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No promises yet, but quick glance is not discouraging. Busy most of Friday and Saturday, on my list. Gamerpro will owe me for life, as I am sure to have nightmares!! The YUK factor in the description at the top of the page could be why no one engaged ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The description is how the movie opens up, by the way. And I think this comment makes the article write up all worth it. GamerPro64 20:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GamerPro64: as I read, I will do the source check for copyvio, reliability and source-to-text integrity. Are you able to email me any of the offline sources? I am out for the day ... pls email and I will respond via email so you can attach anything. Coords may assume I am checking as I read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I answered Sandys question on her talk page but will bring it up again here. I added urls to four of the sources but I do not have a way to send the Los Angeles Times and The Monthly Film Bulletin sources. The Baby Boomers and Popular Culture book meanwhile was added in by another user. GamerPro64 20:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG review

[edit]

Whether to proceed on FAC or off is up to the Coords. On the one hand, this has sat here for almost two months, with limited review, while GamerPro64 is a regular and helpful contributor at FAR-- an editor who deserves exceptions, IMNSHO ... meaning, I will help them see this article through whether on or off FAC, 'cuz they deserve it. On the other hand, the FAC received two Supports when it had typographical and grammatical errors; we need to find a way to call attention to the reviewers that do that, and I don't want to keep being the one to do it. The two Supports were premature. But I believe we can get there from here, with some more work. I leave it to the Coords to decide whether that is here or off FAC.

Sources, citations, and text-to-source integrity
Grammatical and typos
Linking
Misc
  • The film guidelines call for a plot summary of 400 to 700 words for a featured film; this is at 660. It could be considered, then, on the long side for a short-ish film article, but I think not ... because ... I believe there is still interesting material in the sources that might be incorporated. Adding to the article would bring the plot summary size more in line with the overall article size. I am not sure the full date which the film was set needs to be in the plot summary (just the year?).
Prose nitpicks

But mostly, the sources provide good material, and the lead can be more compelling:

Almost there! A good start ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I answered a lot of your comments and will do another pass through the stuff I did not. GamerPro64 04:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good progress, GamerPro64; I will be back on this later today. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. I will do a top-to-bottom re-read in the next few days to make sure the changes hang together well and cover all of the interesting material in the sources. @Mike Christie: might you have a look now? Also, since Aoba47 and Andrzejbanas supported the FAC while the article had grammatical, typographical, MOS and sourcing errors, perhaps they will read the subsequent reviews and re-read the article now to help identify any remaining issues. Depending on further feedback, I hope to be able to support. Mainly at this stage, I think the lead could be more compelling ... will try to generate some ideas as I re-read.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I no longer do reviews of any kind. The ping and the parts about the apparent failures of the past reviewers (myself included) are unnecessary and not constructive. The focus should be kept on helping to improve the article. If you really wish to pursue a conversation on how I should be a better reviewer, someone's FAC is not the right time or place for that at all. Either way, I do not see myself doing any reviews in the future after recent developments. Aoba47 (talk) 04:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asking you to review the changes and suggest any further improvements— as a previous reviewer— is to improve the article. I apologize that my phrasing made it seem otherwise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SG continued
[edit]

People have also suggested here to have a shot of Rogers face being covered in the worms. If I were to upload an image on here, would it be best to include it in the Reception section? GamerPro64 14:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The prose needs a push to bring this FAC over the line; there is good material in the sources, more of which is now incorporated. Perhaps Ceoil or Gog the Mild would do The favor of some prose smoothing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry SandyGeorgia, but I am busy with both RL and Wikipedia and it would be next week at the earliest. And this just isn't my sort of article. I am going to remind myself that I do this for "fun", and say "no". Gog the Mild (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can't think of anyone in particular who can do a copyedit at such short notice. GamerPro64 06:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Followup
[edit]

Gamer, www.dreadcentral.com gives no indication of reliability. Also, what it says is that Lieberman makes this statement in the commentary on the DVD, so if the Stallone content is added, it would need to be prefaced with attribution "Lieberman stated that Stallone auditioned ... ". So, you would need to listen to the DVD to see exactly what he said, and cite the timemark. But my suggestion is that if no other source mentions this, it's not worthy of inclusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, Dread central is considered a Reliable source for the Film wikiproject. GamerPro64 20:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen instances in which a WikiProject's assessment is not considered strong enough to classify a source as appropriate for a FAC. I feel slightly uncertain with those kinds of remarks as I find that it speaks down to a WikiProject's work. It might be helpful to point out if there is any indication of editorial oversight on the site. The fact that it won AMC's Site of the Week, and has been cited in a third-party publication like Tampa Bay Times may be helpful in this case as well. I hope this helps. Aoba47 (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 continued

[edit]

Apologies for initially refusing to come back to this review. I want to help as much as I possibly can so I will read through the article again and post further suggestions here if that is okay. I will put them up shortly, but I want to leave this as a placeholder for now. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Before getting into the prose, I have run across chatter online that Sylvester Stallone wanted to play Roger Grimes. This bit of casting information is mentioned in the following book (link), but I am uncertain if it would be considered a high-quality source.
  • This DVD Talk source (link) includes some helpful background information on the film that is absent from the article. It talks about Lieberman being influenced by The Birds, which is a connection brought up in some academic analyses/books, the reason for Jean Sullivan's accent, and R.A. Dow doing some method acting by spending weeks in Port Wentworth to prepare for the role. I think this kind of background information would be helpful for the article.
  • Would it be beneficial to note that this was Jean Sullivan's final film appearance?
    • Not really finding a source on that.
      • Understandable. I found this Variety source (link), which mentions how she left acting to pursue dance and theatre instead. However, that kind of information is probably best for Sullivan's article as it would probably pull focus away from the film here. Aoba47 (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there should be a citation for the running time.
  • I think it would be notable to mention that Squirm was the only production by The Squirm Company. Here's a link to support that.
  • I would change the lead's first sentence to (Squirm is a 1976 American natural horror film written and directed by Jeff Lieberman, starring Don Scardino, Patricia Pearcy, R.A. Dow, Jean Sullivan, Peter MacLean, Fran Higgins, and William Newman.) for two reasons. The "that was" part is not necessary, and after seeing the "starring..." sentence structure in the Whiskey Galore! article, I think it reads more smoothly than the current "and stars" structure.
  • I think it would be better to put this part, "Lieberman was inspired to write the script by a childhood incident", into a more active tense. Maybe something like "Lieberman developed the script based on a childhood incident"?
  • I would re-examine the prose in the lead's second paragraph. I find it to be somewhat choppy, and I think more sentence variety would make this information read more smoothly and cohesively. I find that a lot the sentences have a very similar structure throughout the article, but this is the part where I find it to be the most noticeable.
  • I am uncertain about this part (called The Art of Film—he says he developed). I have never personally seen a dash used to separate two sentences in this way so I am not sure if it is grammatically correct.
  • There is minor repetition with the phrases "the script was inspired by an incident" and "Lieberman was also inspired" as it puts a variation of "was inspired" in two back-to-back sentences.
  • The part on Martin Sheen seems rather long, particularly since Sheen and Mick are repeated twice. I'd instead put the Hamlet part as a separate sentence as I think it would make the information more digestible to readers.
  • I do not thinks this part, "To get the worms to move the way they did in the film, they were", is grammatically correct. I think the noun "they" should be referring back to the dependent clause. So the noun should be the person/people that "get the worms to move the way they did in the film".
  • Psycho is linked twice in the article. For its first mention, I'd change it to "composer for the films The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) and Psycho (1960)", and for its second instance, I'd remove "1960's".
  • For this part, "covered in lubricant onto Dow, with a puppeteer pulling the worms on the line to have them appear they were going into Dow's skin", I think you can just saw "his skin" as it is clear from the context of the sentence and it would avoid the repetition of "Dow" twice in the same sentence.
  • For this part, "slaughtered in Brian De Palma's 1976 film Carrie.", I am not sure if the director's name needs to be included in the prose. It just seems rather random to name him here.
    • I think its important to keep in it as its said later on that De Palma would later use a poster of Squirm in one of his other movies. Could be seen as going hand in hand. GamerPro64 04:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for pointing that out. I am not sure how I missed that. I agree with you that it does help to build a connection and support that Lieberman was a fan of De Palma. Aoba47 (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add ALT text to the film screenshot.
  • In the "Reception" subsection, there are times you use the critic's name and other instance you only use the publication's name. I'd be more consistent with one way or the other. For instance, in this part "use of synthesizers in the music score was described by Allmovie as", I'd use Guarisco instead of AllMovie. And for parts like "Variety magazine described them" and "TV Guide thought it", I'd use something like "a reviewer for Variety" or "a TV Guide contributor" to keep things more consistent.
  • The "Reception" subsection's final paragraph loses its focus in the final three sentences. The topic sentence is about more mixed/negative retrospective reviews, but the TV Guide seems like a positive review, the Abbott part reads like an objective comparison, and the paragraph ends with a positive review on the music
  • For the Abbot part, I would expand on his point. In the source, Abbott seems to enjoy that scene as "a sick twist" on Psycho, so I would add more context to this sentence so more information is available.
  • In this part, (score was described by Allmovie as producing an "unnerving effect"), it should be AllMovie. For reference 11, it should be AllMovie.
  • I think this sentence (Lieberman, who idolized De Palma, told Fangoria he met De Palma years later and asked him about the poster.) reads rather awkwardly due to the repetition of "De Palma". I think something like the following would be better: (A fan of De Palma, Lieberman told Fangoria that he asked him about the poster years later.)
  • It seems rather random to describe "Weird Paul" Petroskey as a "Pittsburgh musician". The city name does not seem particularly relevant and I do not think adds any further meaning to the sentence. It might be more insightful to add the genre of music he makes instead.
  • Here are some more sources on Petroskey and Worm in My Egg Cream. This Vice source (here) mentions that he wrote the album and released it on his label Rocks & Rolling Records. This Pittsburgh Post-Gazette source (here) briefly mentions the album in the larger context of how he uses comedy in music. I think these two third-party sources would support why the album is notable enough for inclusion since the information is currently only supported by a primary source.
  • For the Bibliography subsection, I would have each publishing company/press linked to be more consistent.
  • The Variety citation says April 11, 1976, but the source says December 31, 1975.
  • I'd remove "Staff Writer" from references 5 and 7.

I hope that my comments are helpful. Once everything is addressed, I will look through the article again. I hope you are doing well and stay safe with all of the craziness going on in the world at the moment. Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would suggest removing the Rotten Tomatoes sentence in the "Reception" subsection. I had brought this up earlier in the review, but I do not see it adding much value to the prose. It is not great to have a single-sentence paragraph, and and I have seen some discussions about the value of putting a Rotten Tomatoes score in the prose of articles about films that predate the website.
  • I'd look at the sentence structure in the "Reception" subsection. I like how you have group topics together, but a majority of the sentences have the same structure. I would add in more sentence variety to make the material more engaging to the reader and present the information in a more cohesive manner. It's a similar comment that I had on the lead's second paragraph. Let me know if that makes sense. I'd recommend looking at the same essay that Mike Christie linked. Aoba47 (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricane Noah

[edit]

Placeholder. NoahTalk 15:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies for interrupting your review. I am uncertain if the plot section should mention that Fly Creek is fictional as it may lead to some confusion that the town is fictional in the context of the movie. For instance, the film The Beautician and the Beast occurs in a fictional Eastern European country, and when I worked on the article, an editor left the following edit summary: (In the plot, the country is not "fictional" and rephrased the sentence to clear the confusion.) I think a similar sentiment can be said here. Aoba47 (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: Do you have anymore comments? GamerPro64 22:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm supporting promotion. NoahTalk 22:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note 2

[edit]

I'm sorry to archive this but the prose concerns highlighted by Mike are enough to bring me to archive it. I strongly suggest working with Mike to get his concerns resolved, and hopefully we can see this again shortly in stronger shape. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Squirm/archive1&oldid=973209019"