Talk:Halloween (franchise)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Halloween (franchise) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Halloween (franchise) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: May 26, 2008
Former featured topic This article is part of a former featured topic series. If it has improved again to featured topic standard, you may renominate the topic to become a featured topic.
This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Any good images for this article?

I would be delighted if someone could add some appropriate images that are allowed to be used in this article. It's currently lacking in that department. Gary King (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

The article is very good, but it NEEDS images if it is going to pass. Current ref. 18 is dead, and needs to be replaced. I will give the article a week and check back then. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 23:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ref fixed. We (the primary editors of this article) aren't sure what images we could add. Most of the ones available are fair use, and since there is no actual box set or anything similar of these films, there isn't much we can add to illustrate the article. Suggestions? Gary King (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Limetolime, images are not a requirement. The criteria is that IF there are images are they being appropriately used. Frankly, we can do without the Zombie, Faeg, and Mane image in the Development section and the article will be fine. I'm personally working on a new reception section with actual reviews; I'm just busy in real life right now to finish the work in my sandbox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Ignore that crossed out bit, I thought I was looking at Halloween (2007 film). The rest still applies. Images are only to be used where appropriate, not simply because the article doesn't have any to begin with. There are other means to "dress up" an article. As Gary mentioned, and as you can see above, the discussion of simply throwing images in for the sake of having them is not appropriate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Before considering this article further for GA, a thorough copy-edit is a good idea. I've flagged it accordingly.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you give some examples of what is awkward.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Bignole. I didn't know this, so I've replaced the neg. tag with a N/A. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 13:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's some examples of issues in the Overview section that shouldn't exist in a GA article —

  • Inconsistent present "fiction" tense: "The original Halloween (1978), written and directed by John Carpenter, revolved around Michael Myers stalking and killing babysitters on Halloween night. The film begins ..."
  • Pronouns & clarity: "Michael follows Laurie to the local hospital, where he proceeds to murder everyone that gets in his way of finding Laurie."
  • Typo: "where Loomis causes an explosion as Laurie escapes ." (space before period)
  • Clarity: "Michael stumbles out of the room, engulfed in flames, toward Laurie before finally falling to the floor dead." How about, "Michael, engulfed in flames, stumbles toward Laurie before falling dead."?
  • Inconsistent tense (again) and word choice: "The third Halloween film, subtitled Season of the Witch (1982), had no connection to the previous two Halloween films. Season of the Witch followed the story of Dr. Challis (Tom Atkins) as he tries to uncover the mysterious murder of a patient in his hospital.
  • Preposition use: "He, along with the patient's daughter Ellie (Stacey Nelkin), travels to a small town in Santa Mira, California. (I'm assuming Santa Mira is the town).
  • Article use: "The pair discover that a Silver Shamrock Novelties, ..."
  • Clarity: "While being transferred back to Smith's Grove, Michael overhears that Laurie Strode, who died in a car accident, has a daughter, Jamie Lloyd (Danielle Harris). Michael comes out of his coma and heads to Haddonfield in search of Jamie. (Does Michael hear while in the coma, or is sentence sequence incorrect?)
  • ???: "Picking up directly where the previous film ends, Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989) has Michael (Don Shanks) surviving the gunshots, and the fall down the mine; he stumbles upon a hermit who bandages him up." (Verb tense, passive voice and joining the hermit to that sentence with a semicolon.)

Yes, these examples are relatively minor problems and are quickly fixed, but that is exactly the point. They need to be and should be fixed before the article is listed as GA. Relatively minor problems, but that doesn't mean they should be in a GA quality article. It's also perplexing that these examples come from just the first three paragraphs of the section; the rest of the article contains a similar level of problems.
Jim Dunning | talk 19:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, it seems the Lead should be more comprehensive in its summary of the article. Mention of the films', novels', and comic books' reception is missing (other than box office gross), as well as a treatment of the franchise's legacy (I've started a paragraph to address this, but just barely). The Reception section certainly could expand in its coverage of the films, and it fails to address critical and fan reception of the literature and merchandise.
Jim Dunning | talk 19:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Jim, what is the significance of having the image from Halloween III? I think stating "views a commercial with a mask on" is evident enough that we don't need an image to help a reader better understand what is being said, per WP:NCC #8.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I was going back and forth on it, and your question swings me back to not including it. Agreed.
Jim Dunning | talk 20:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation issues

I removed the sfgate cite in the Reception section because it does not support the several assertions made in the first paragraph. It does reference misogyny, but specific to H2O, not to the franchise. Consequently, sources are needed to replace the Fact tags. I also temporarily removed the ref linked to the Amazon page for Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slasher Film, 1978 to 1986: I'd feel more comfortable if specific page numbers could be provided for the material. If anyone can provide them, that would be great. I'll keep looking.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Two refs in the Development section have also been removed because they are to a fansite. One had been listed as citing Fangoria, but the referenced interview is only mentioned on the fan website. Perhaps someone can find the Fangoria article and cite it directly. Maybe this site is a reliable source (although the writing isn't always the best). It does a fairly good job of mentioning source articles, although it would be nice if it cited the article dates, titles, and authors. Anyways, it would be better if the source article were reffed directly. Does anyone have concerns about using this site as a source? It appears to fall into the category of "self-published".
Jim Dunning | talk 03:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:CITE, "It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source." Consequently, I changed a ref's identity from Entertainment Weekly to Halloween Movies.
I was under the impression that HalloweenMovies.com was actually the official website owned by the original production house. Looking at the website credits, they state that Malek Akkad (one of the exect. producers) is one of the site producers. Other than that it doesn't specifically state "this is THE official site of the Halloween films".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA fail

I have waited for more than a week, and my concerns were not fixed, so the article cannot pass. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 23:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been only four days according to my computer. Gary King (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)