The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot ( talk) 15 August 2020 [1].
"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)
Image review
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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.
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.
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".
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.
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".
The reviewer gave exception to: should be "took exception to".
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
MGM later released in 2011 as part of a set with Swamp Thing and The Return of the Living Dead.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Placeholder. Noah Talk 15:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Hurricane Noah: Do you have anymore comments? GamerPro64 22:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot ( talk) 15 August 2020 [1].
"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)
Image review
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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.
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.
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".
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.
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".
The reviewer gave exception to: should be "took exception to".
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
MGM later released in 2011 as part of a set with Swamp Thing and The Return of the Living Dead.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Placeholder. Noah Talk 15:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Hurricane Noah: Do you have anymore comments? GamerPro64 22:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
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)