The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:08, 4 March 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this article for featured article because I am a glutton for abuse and punishment and no one doles it out better than FA reviewers! ;-) Seriously, I believe that the article meets the FA criteria. Frequently cited as the best gothic horror film ever made and as James Whale's directorial masterpiece, this is a touchstone in American film history. The article was nominated once previously but was never evaluated as I had nominated two articles at the same time. Many thanks to the various editors who reviewed the article for GA and at peer review in preparation for this nomination. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments -
Comments
Support Comments (leaning towards support, from Ruhrfisch) Generally looks good, here are some nitpicks and I will make a few copyedits. I will make some initial comments now and add more later.
Resolved comments from Ruhrfisch
|
---|
More later, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
More comments The changes look good for the most part - thanks. Here are the rest of my nit picks.
Now reads Lanchester modeled the Bride's hissing on the hissing of swans. Whale filmed the hissing sequence from multiple angles and Lanchester gave herself a sore throat, which she treated with codeine. I didn't write that bit either.
I hope this helps, well done over all. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Dabs look good. Check the toolbox, there is one dead link.
Dabomb87 (
talk) 05:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
Good job though. :) I really like the effort in this. Mitch32( Go Syracuse) 22:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Image review as follows:
The above should be fairly simple to resolve. Jappalang ( talk) 01:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
To me, that seems clunky. The "of the film" is especially superfluous, seeming to drag the sentence out past its welcome. Reading that, immediately the redundant words stood out, almost as if in boldface:The studio had considered the idea of making a sequel to Frankenstein as early as the 1931 preview screenings of the film.
Now look at:The studio had considered 'the idea of making a sequel to Frankenstein as early as
theits 1931 preview screenings of the film.
Are you sure you don't think this reads smoother? None of the meaning is lost, yet to me it is cleaner, more precise (with the caveat I mention above). A third opinion may help here. Steve T • C 22:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC) replyThe studio considered making a sequel to Frankenstein as early as its 1931 preview screenings.
What does "today" refer to? It will become dated. Does it want to be "as of 2009"? "As of 2008"? What is the precise date? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:08, 4 March 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this article for featured article because I am a glutton for abuse and punishment and no one doles it out better than FA reviewers! ;-) Seriously, I believe that the article meets the FA criteria. Frequently cited as the best gothic horror film ever made and as James Whale's directorial masterpiece, this is a touchstone in American film history. The article was nominated once previously but was never evaluated as I had nominated two articles at the same time. Many thanks to the various editors who reviewed the article for GA and at peer review in preparation for this nomination. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments -
Comments
Support Comments (leaning towards support, from Ruhrfisch) Generally looks good, here are some nitpicks and I will make a few copyedits. I will make some initial comments now and add more later.
Resolved comments from Ruhrfisch
|
---|
More later, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
More comments The changes look good for the most part - thanks. Here are the rest of my nit picks.
Now reads Lanchester modeled the Bride's hissing on the hissing of swans. Whale filmed the hissing sequence from multiple angles and Lanchester gave herself a sore throat, which she treated with codeine. I didn't write that bit either.
I hope this helps, well done over all. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Dabs look good. Check the toolbox, there is one dead link.
Dabomb87 (
talk) 05:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
Good job though. :) I really like the effort in this. Mitch32( Go Syracuse) 22:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Image review as follows:
The above should be fairly simple to resolve. Jappalang ( talk) 01:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
To me, that seems clunky. The "of the film" is especially superfluous, seeming to drag the sentence out past its welcome. Reading that, immediately the redundant words stood out, almost as if in boldface:The studio had considered the idea of making a sequel to Frankenstein as early as the 1931 preview screenings of the film.
Now look at:The studio had considered 'the idea of making a sequel to Frankenstein as early as
theits 1931 preview screenings of the film.
Are you sure you don't think this reads smoother? None of the meaning is lost, yet to me it is cleaner, more precise (with the caveat I mention above). A third opinion may help here. Steve T • C 22:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC) replyThe studio considered making a sequel to Frankenstein as early as its 1931 preview screenings.
What does "today" refer to? It will become dated. Does it want to be "as of 2009"? "As of 2008"? What is the precise date? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply