Talk:Black Sabbath (film)/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 16:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Expect comments from me within a few days.

looking forward to it! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is how this article currently compares against the GA criteria:

1. Well written?:

Prose quality: Not bad. Here's some comments:
  • Any particular reason an Italian translation is given in the lead but not a French one?
  • Per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(films)#Foreign-language_films, the naming and titles for films in pages is mostly for searchability purposes. This is predominantly an Italian production, and the lead of films should give a brief overview of the production. In other words, in the film world, people either call this Black Sabbath or I tre volti de la paura, but I'd say only in France is it actually really important what it's French title was. I included the information in the release section, but I don't think it's prominent enough for the lead. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first titled 'The Telephone' involves Suzy"..... "titled 'The Telephone'" should be between commas
  • "The second is 'The Wurdulak' where a man"..... add a comma after "The Wurdulak"
  • "The third story 'The Drop of Water' features Jacqueline Pierreux"..... "The Drop Of Water" should be between commas
  • Remove "that" from "A follow-up to Black Sabbath that was titled Scarlet Friday"
  • "This project was never developed"..... The project
  • Remove "Screenwriter" from "Screenwriter Bevilacqua"
Manual of Style compliance: Almost.
  • The lead should have a bit of detail on what critics liked about the film.
  • This was the most frustrating part of my research! Even if people gave it good reviews currently, they don't go into detail about what they did or did not like about the damn thing, and if they do, it's vague and inconsistent with each other. Of the notable reviews, it was either "atmospheric", or "suberbly suspensful" or "visually interesting" or simply "entertaining" or whatever. None really go on about what they did or didn't like outside the The Dissolve review. For me, I think the Time Out list which was voted by critics, authors, film makers, etc. gets the idea that the film is generally well received now enough. But I can try and do a bit more if you like. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not counting subsection titles and cast members in parentheses, the plot is currently 714 words long. WP:FILMPLOT says plot summaries should be 400–700 words long.
  • I've shortened the plot down by taking out a few terms that aren't needed to understand it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ′ should be ' per MOS:QUOTEMARKS
  • I must've misread something in that case, though keep this MoS in mind for future works. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References layout: As indicated above, the "M" should be capitalized for AllMovie. It also should not be italicized. Work/publishers "Boston Globe" should read The Boston Globe. Consider the use of publishers; for consistency sake, I'd remove them since some don't include those while others do. For time instances used, I'd use things like "occurs at 3:10" rather than "occurs at three minutes and ten seconds".
Done! Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except you forgot to remove the italics within references. Here's a tip: "work parameter" automatically italicizes terms, "publisher" parameter does not. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've done it correctly now. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, one thing I forgot to mention though is that when using a term in a ref multiple times (i.e. multiple AllMovie refs), only link the term in the first ref that uses it per WP:OVERLINK. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Citations to reliable sources: Is Twitch Film a reliable source?
I've used Twitch before, but I might as well get a better source. I've replaced with the Guardian. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No original research: No unsourced statements.

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: Close, but not quite:
  • An exact release title would be nice. I'd include this if known. Interestingly, Rotten Tomatoes says it was released May 6, 1964, rather than September 1963 (the date range currently used).
  • I think the Rotten Tomatoes article is using mixed information. According to the American Film Institute, Black Sabbath was shown in Detroit on May 6 1963 (Source). Rotten Tomatoes also doesn't specify where that information is pulled from, where it premiered or any of that. I'm leaning toward that it's sort of mixing and matching information. Also, I'd normally would've included that more specific release date for the American release, but I can't confirm if that's where the American premiere was, and it's specific premiere date in Detroit doesn't seem super notable, outside having an actual day of course! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there no detail on box office?
  • It's very hard to find box office details about films from the past, but it's even harder for foreign films that were basically just quickly made films from directors who weren't really considered anything special until 20 years after these productions were made. Another way to put it is, there is barely any information regarding when it premeired, so there is sadly no real information about the film's budget or gross either. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The duration should be included in infobox.
  • This is another issue which I'm not sure how to handle. According to the American Film Institute, "Copyright length: 96 min. Opened in Rome in Sep 1963 as I tre volti della paura , with episodes entitled "I wurdalak," "La goccia d'acqua," and "Il telefono"; running time: 100 min. Opened in Paris in Nov 1965 as Les trois visages de la peur ; running time: 95 min.". So depending on what version you see, there's several different running times. There's no one perfect one, so I'd either say I leave it out of the infobox as there is no singular answer. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One possible way is by accessing the movie on DVD or Blu-ray and tracking the time length. Just a thought. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used to use those, but now I sort of ignore them because they usually include time related things like "FBI warnings" and "restoration text" before the film lately and that doesn't really accurately describe the time either. :( Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For something with a "legacy" section, two paragraphs doesn't seem like much detail for that. I feel "influence" would be a title for that instead.
Focused: I have one concern. The statement "By the 1960s, Italian horror films were more violent, sexualized, and downbeat than the horror films created in America. American International Pictures focused on a youth-oriented audience whereas horror in Europe was intended for adults" doesn't seem to fully connect with the rest of the text. I'd try to rework this so it pertains more to this film, i.e. "In contrast to the more violent and sexualized Italian horror films, American International Pictures focused....." and go into how this films differs from those.
  • It's not that much of a history lesson, but the idea was that the younger american audience wouldn't have topics of lesbians and pimps. Those were cut in the American version. That's the main issue. I tried adjusting that a bit, but I don't want that section to stray too far from the the topic of Black sabbath opposed to the history of horror films. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I'm getting at is that you should mention the film explicitly when comparing/contrasting its content to that from other horror films. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias: Nothing of concern

5. Stable?

No edit wars, content disputes, etc. All recent work has been simply to construct

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: All properly licensed
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: All good

Overall:

Pass or Fail: : The work needed isn't extensive, so this is on hold for seven days. Good luck! Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've covered everything. Just waiting for replies and other such stuff @SNUGGUMS:. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Sabbath_(film)/GA2&oldid=1089042855"