![]() | This WikiProject Film page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. | ![]() |
Failed due to lack of comment. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 19:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the article has undergone major changes since June 2008. Although it has 3 failed FA nominations, I believe that, due to the extensive changes made, the article now meets the requirements for A-Class, and may eventually become Featured.
TaerkastUA (
talk) 19:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Failed due to lack of comment Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 19:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I would like to nominate this article on the important and influential film,
Chak De India, currently at GA, for A-Status.
Classicfilms (
talk) 21:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Failed Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 19:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because after doing both a comprehensive and exhaustive rewrite, this article has greatly improved in the span of a couple of weeks. Suggestions would be great. Also, I intend to replace the IMDb citation from the Awards section. I also plan on finish writing the Cast descriptions, even if they aren't required (see
300 (film)#Cast).
Wildroot (
talk) 23:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Failed Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 19:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because all applicable information for the article in reliable sources has been gathered, cited, and placed into the body of text to round the subject out fully. Article is currently GA across the board, and A-class for the video game and Horror projects already. Kung Fu Man ( talk) 21:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Failed Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 19:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Article is currently at GA-status and has undergone two peer reviews since its creation. I believe that every aspect of the film has been covered to an extent in the article and it is written very well according to Wikipedia standards. I would like to see the article promoted to A-class before perfecting it for its FA nomination, of which it is not too far off. – Dream out loud ( talk) 16:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply
A well-researched and well-written article. I can't find much to fault, so the following may seem a bit nitpicky, however....
I've edited out some of my more trivial concerns, and I don't have the issue with the whitespace mentioned above. I'll wait until my concerns are addressed before commenting futher, but I don't see any real reason why I wouldn't support this nomination. Regards. PC78 ( talk) 20:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Hello, I used
Checklinks to update some URLs in the article. I have two suggestions regarding the article's references. First, if you are interested in cutting down the KB size of the article, you do not need the publisher=
for works that already have their own article, such as The New York Times or Variety. (This rationale is from
Template:Cite news, where under the "publisher" description, it says, "The company or organization that publishes the news source. Not necessary for major publications like The New York Times, but may add credibility for local papers that are part of a family of publications like The McClatchy Company." My other suggestion is to write out the dates in the references in full since there is no auto-formatting these days. I believe that readers can more quickly read the date when fully written out and not in ISO formatting. May also help to use
WP:NBSP for the dates (between month and day). Below are some so-called "nitpicky" suggestions:
I performed general copy-editing for each section in the article; hopefully the separate copy-edit for each section makes review easier. Most changes are minimal, but I rewrote the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic sentences in their entirety to provide better clarify to readers, since not all may be familiar with the so-called "Fresh" rating. Please respond to my suggestions above or my copy-editing, both of which I am happy to discuss. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC) reply
These are just my opinions about the article and I'm sure there will be some disagreements on some and I hope that we can come to some sort of consensus on it to be able to promote this to A-Class, and eventually FA-Class. – Dream out loud ( talk) 19:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because after some time since the movie came out, the article has achieved a certain state of maturity which I think entitles it for A-class status.
uKER (
talk) 05:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
reply
I am renominating this article for A-Class review because it failed the first time due to lack of comment. I believe the article meets the requirements because has undergone major changes since June 2008, and continues to improve. Although it has 3 failed FA nominations, I believe that, due to the extensive changes made, the article now meets the requirements for A-Class, and may eventually become Featured. --
TaerkastUA (
talk) 18:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
reply
*In the third paragraph in Development, discussion turns to "Midway through the editing process". This seems to flow better structurally, but I'm not sure if it's under the appropriate heading.
*"The company folded in 1976". Perhaps stating the company's name is better here. In this paragraph, a lot of names are being tossed around and it's a bit hard to figure which is correct.
*"The blood depicted was sometimes real.[35]" Perhaps information about this should be moved closer to the information about the stage blood and the person cutting their finger. Even though it's stated, this is kind of a vague statement that does not really suggest much. Was the "real blood" just the blood from the finger? Or was it more? I'd remove this actually. This also goes for "The crew covered the walls of the house with splats of dried blood to give the house an authentic look." So is this the real blood or the fake blood? The sentence suggests it's real but I'm just double-checking.
* "Until 1976, when the contract with Bryanston expired, the film was double-billed with "another film they'd [Bryanston] bought for twenty bucks." so who said this? when? More information would be appreciated.
*That temperature information in the filming section seems to need a cite. Is it part of the same cite as the camera information? I'd toss in a few more cites there.
*"The film was banned or delayed in many countries, and where it was released, it was frequently re-edited." This sentence only follows up with the information about the UK and Australian releases. Is there any other information about other countries as well? Otherwise, it should only describe Australia and the United Kingdom as that's the only countries that are discussed.
*"It was selected for the 1975 Cannes Film Festival Directors' Fortnight, though the viewing was delayed due to a bomb scare,[55] and it won the Grand Prize at the Avoriaz Film Festival in 1976." Perhaps these sentences should be separated in two. Maybe a sliver more information about what and where the Avoriaz Film Festival is held? To my knowledge it's a
fantastique film festival in France. That could be expanded a pinch.
* If that Variety citation's original date is to be believed, then Variety somehow managed to watch the film before it was released. I'd remove that, several reviews on Variety's website state incorrect dates claiming several reviews to be written on New Year's Day.
* "In a 2005 poll conducted by Total Film, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre topped the list as the greatest horror film of all time, beating John Carpenter's Halloween and William Friedkin's The Exorcist (1973)." Does it really matter that it beat those two others? That seems rather insignifigant as it also beat out 48 other films as well.
*That rotten tomatoes cite should say "film" instead of movie. It doesn't really explain what rotten tomatoes is to a non-average reviewer and I'd either incorporate this cite earlier or remove it entirely.
*"The film was again banned in the United Kingdom in 1984, during the moral panic surrounding video nasties". This needs a citation, the citation it is followed by lacks any information about video nasties.
* "and, due to the controversy surrounding the film" that cite says nothing about why it was released in the UK at that date.
* Citation 82 seems to need to be updated.
* Citation 89 could use a page number.
* "Comedian Patton Oswalt refers to the title as "The Greatest Movie Title Ever", because it perfectly describes the movie.". I like Oswalt but he doesn't have much relation with the film or the genre so I don't think his statement is very important.
* That Total Film poll does not need to be brought up twice. Constantly using it to state that it's "generally considered" one of the greatest horror films of all time might be a jump too. Just because Total Film does, doesn't mean other critics do as well.
* Citation 100 and 104 do not seem to state what they are citing. In fact if citation 100 calls the Texas chainsaw massacre game and action game while the article calls it an horror game.
* What makes Icons of Fright a valid source?
* Citation 108 seems to be citing a messageboard which I don't believe is a good source. Could you explain how this is a valid source?
* "In the movie, R. A. Mihailoff starred as Leatherface." is this really important? Also, it's uncited and say "film" rather then movie.
* " The film was a semi-remake of the original, although it was originally intended to be a complete remake of the first film.". This needs a citation. The review in the guide suggests it was, but doesn't explain it further.
*The ALT tag in the infobox could go into more detail about the poster. Check out Spider-man 3 for example. Half this poster is large text so that could be noted as that information can not be read by the blind with any tools.
*per
WP:LEADCITE, we don't need those extra citations in the intro paragraph. Several of those statements match up with information that is already cited in the article below.
*per
Wikipedia:Words to avoid, we see a lot of however's in this article suggesting one alternative is better or worse over another. These should be re-phrased to have the article in a
Neutral point of view.
*per
Wikipedia:MOS#Brackets_and_parentheses we should not have sentences that follow up with phrases like "(It was overtaken by John Carpenter's Halloween (1978), which grossed $47 million at the box office upon release.[54])". It doesn't need to be in brackets.
Okay I'm a bit exhausted! That's all for now. After these things are addressed I will continue the review. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 14:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC) reply
![]() | This WikiProject Film page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. | ![]() |
Failed due to lack of comment. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 19:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the article has undergone major changes since June 2008. Although it has 3 failed FA nominations, I believe that, due to the extensive changes made, the article now meets the requirements for A-Class, and may eventually become Featured.
TaerkastUA (
talk) 19:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Failed due to lack of comment Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 19:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I would like to nominate this article on the important and influential film,
Chak De India, currently at GA, for A-Status.
Classicfilms (
talk) 21:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Failed Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 19:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because after doing both a comprehensive and exhaustive rewrite, this article has greatly improved in the span of a couple of weeks. Suggestions would be great. Also, I intend to replace the IMDb citation from the Awards section. I also plan on finish writing the Cast descriptions, even if they aren't required (see
300 (film)#Cast).
Wildroot (
talk) 23:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Failed Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 19:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because all applicable information for the article in reliable sources has been gathered, cited, and placed into the body of text to round the subject out fully. Article is currently GA across the board, and A-class for the video game and Horror projects already. Kung Fu Man ( talk) 21:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Failed Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 19:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Article is currently at GA-status and has undergone two peer reviews since its creation. I believe that every aspect of the film has been covered to an extent in the article and it is written very well according to Wikipedia standards. I would like to see the article promoted to A-class before perfecting it for its FA nomination, of which it is not too far off. – Dream out loud ( talk) 16:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply
A well-researched and well-written article. I can't find much to fault, so the following may seem a bit nitpicky, however....
I've edited out some of my more trivial concerns, and I don't have the issue with the whitespace mentioned above. I'll wait until my concerns are addressed before commenting futher, but I don't see any real reason why I wouldn't support this nomination. Regards. PC78 ( talk) 20:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Hello, I used
Checklinks to update some URLs in the article. I have two suggestions regarding the article's references. First, if you are interested in cutting down the KB size of the article, you do not need the publisher=
for works that already have their own article, such as The New York Times or Variety. (This rationale is from
Template:Cite news, where under the "publisher" description, it says, "The company or organization that publishes the news source. Not necessary for major publications like The New York Times, but may add credibility for local papers that are part of a family of publications like The McClatchy Company." My other suggestion is to write out the dates in the references in full since there is no auto-formatting these days. I believe that readers can more quickly read the date when fully written out and not in ISO formatting. May also help to use
WP:NBSP for the dates (between month and day). Below are some so-called "nitpicky" suggestions:
I performed general copy-editing for each section in the article; hopefully the separate copy-edit for each section makes review easier. Most changes are minimal, but I rewrote the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic sentences in their entirety to provide better clarify to readers, since not all may be familiar with the so-called "Fresh" rating. Please respond to my suggestions above or my copy-editing, both of which I am happy to discuss. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC) reply
These are just my opinions about the article and I'm sure there will be some disagreements on some and I hope that we can come to some sort of consensus on it to be able to promote this to A-Class, and eventually FA-Class. – Dream out loud ( talk) 19:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because after some time since the movie came out, the article has achieved a certain state of maturity which I think entitles it for A-class status.
uKER (
talk) 05:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
reply
I am renominating this article for A-Class review because it failed the first time due to lack of comment. I believe the article meets the requirements because has undergone major changes since June 2008, and continues to improve. Although it has 3 failed FA nominations, I believe that, due to the extensive changes made, the article now meets the requirements for A-Class, and may eventually become Featured. --
TaerkastUA (
talk) 18:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
reply
*In the third paragraph in Development, discussion turns to "Midway through the editing process". This seems to flow better structurally, but I'm not sure if it's under the appropriate heading.
*"The company folded in 1976". Perhaps stating the company's name is better here. In this paragraph, a lot of names are being tossed around and it's a bit hard to figure which is correct.
*"The blood depicted was sometimes real.[35]" Perhaps information about this should be moved closer to the information about the stage blood and the person cutting their finger. Even though it's stated, this is kind of a vague statement that does not really suggest much. Was the "real blood" just the blood from the finger? Or was it more? I'd remove this actually. This also goes for "The crew covered the walls of the house with splats of dried blood to give the house an authentic look." So is this the real blood or the fake blood? The sentence suggests it's real but I'm just double-checking.
* "Until 1976, when the contract with Bryanston expired, the film was double-billed with "another film they'd [Bryanston] bought for twenty bucks." so who said this? when? More information would be appreciated.
*That temperature information in the filming section seems to need a cite. Is it part of the same cite as the camera information? I'd toss in a few more cites there.
*"The film was banned or delayed in many countries, and where it was released, it was frequently re-edited." This sentence only follows up with the information about the UK and Australian releases. Is there any other information about other countries as well? Otherwise, it should only describe Australia and the United Kingdom as that's the only countries that are discussed.
*"It was selected for the 1975 Cannes Film Festival Directors' Fortnight, though the viewing was delayed due to a bomb scare,[55] and it won the Grand Prize at the Avoriaz Film Festival in 1976." Perhaps these sentences should be separated in two. Maybe a sliver more information about what and where the Avoriaz Film Festival is held? To my knowledge it's a
fantastique film festival in France. That could be expanded a pinch.
* If that Variety citation's original date is to be believed, then Variety somehow managed to watch the film before it was released. I'd remove that, several reviews on Variety's website state incorrect dates claiming several reviews to be written on New Year's Day.
* "In a 2005 poll conducted by Total Film, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre topped the list as the greatest horror film of all time, beating John Carpenter's Halloween and William Friedkin's The Exorcist (1973)." Does it really matter that it beat those two others? That seems rather insignifigant as it also beat out 48 other films as well.
*That rotten tomatoes cite should say "film" instead of movie. It doesn't really explain what rotten tomatoes is to a non-average reviewer and I'd either incorporate this cite earlier or remove it entirely.
*"The film was again banned in the United Kingdom in 1984, during the moral panic surrounding video nasties". This needs a citation, the citation it is followed by lacks any information about video nasties.
* "and, due to the controversy surrounding the film" that cite says nothing about why it was released in the UK at that date.
* Citation 82 seems to need to be updated.
* Citation 89 could use a page number.
* "Comedian Patton Oswalt refers to the title as "The Greatest Movie Title Ever", because it perfectly describes the movie.". I like Oswalt but he doesn't have much relation with the film or the genre so I don't think his statement is very important.
* That Total Film poll does not need to be brought up twice. Constantly using it to state that it's "generally considered" one of the greatest horror films of all time might be a jump too. Just because Total Film does, doesn't mean other critics do as well.
* Citation 100 and 104 do not seem to state what they are citing. In fact if citation 100 calls the Texas chainsaw massacre game and action game while the article calls it an horror game.
* What makes Icons of Fright a valid source?
* Citation 108 seems to be citing a messageboard which I don't believe is a good source. Could you explain how this is a valid source?
* "In the movie, R. A. Mihailoff starred as Leatherface." is this really important? Also, it's uncited and say "film" rather then movie.
* " The film was a semi-remake of the original, although it was originally intended to be a complete remake of the first film.". This needs a citation. The review in the guide suggests it was, but doesn't explain it further.
*The ALT tag in the infobox could go into more detail about the poster. Check out Spider-man 3 for example. Half this poster is large text so that could be noted as that information can not be read by the blind with any tools.
*per
WP:LEADCITE, we don't need those extra citations in the intro paragraph. Several of those statements match up with information that is already cited in the article below.
*per
Wikipedia:Words to avoid, we see a lot of however's in this article suggesting one alternative is better or worse over another. These should be re-phrased to have the article in a
Neutral point of view.
*per
Wikipedia:MOS#Brackets_and_parentheses we should not have sentences that follow up with phrases like "(It was overtaken by John Carpenter's Halloween (1978), which grossed $47 million at the box office upon release.[54])". It doesn't need to be in brackets.
Okay I'm a bit exhausted! That's all for now. After these things are addressed I will continue the review. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 14:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC) reply