Talk:Goosebumps (film)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 09:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to claim this for review, but unfortunately it is to fail it. This article just isn't ready, and it is going to take a bit more work than usual to get it to a point where it should be promoted. Here is what I think needs worked on:

The lead does not summarise the entire article, with no coverage of the production section (one of the most important parts of a film article). It also has several references in it—if the content is already in the body of the article then this is unnecessary, if not then it needs to be added to another section or removed from the lead entirely.
The plot summary is almost 200 words over the recommended limit, and I'm not convinced that it should be naming all of those books like that.
The cast list has unsourced information in it, and does not introduce or describe its characters particularly well.
The casting section should not include big paragraphs about characters with no portrayer (only include characters like that if an actor was cast to play them, since it is a casting section). Perhaps you should consider a section specifically for the monsters in the film and which books they are from; if done well, this can avoid any potential in-universe and trivia issues by focusing on the real-world aspects and the creation of the characters, and this could replace the content in the plot summary that probably shouldn't be there.
In general there could be a lot more information added to the production section. Surely there is more information out there on the writing of the film, and how they chose to adapt the books the way that they did. And for a film this visual-effect heavy, not having a section about those and how the monsters were created is pretty egregious.
If there is not going to be a standalone music article, then the things that would be expected of one should be included here. That includes pretty basic things like a track listing for the score (and make sure it isn't unsourced like the current list of songs).
I find it hard to believe that there was no noteworthy marketing for this film, especially given that it is based on an existing and popular IP.
The release section skips straight from the premiere to the home media release. What about the general theatrical release of the film?
A quote from a single review is just not good enough for a release section. This should be several substantial paragraphs from a wide variety of reputable sources, and written better than just copying over quotes as well.
The accolades section is only partially sourced.
There is no need for so much information on the sequel, it has its own article.
All references need to be tidied-up and filled-out, and in particular they all need to be archived.
A general copy-edit to improve overall phrasing probably wouldn't go amiss either.

There's quite a bit there, but if you work through those points and get the article looking a lot better then you should go ahead and nominate it for GA again. Even if it isn't quite there, whoever picks it up for review then will likely be able to work with you to get it finished up. Good luck! - adamstom97 (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]