Talk:Halloween II (2009 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Beloved Freak 18:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Generally very good with a few issues (see below).

B. MoS compliance:
Mostly fine; lead section needs to better summarise the article. See below.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Some issues, see below.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Some issues, see below.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Reception section needs beefing up. See below.

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Prose

I'll detail a few issues I noticed.

Lead

"A sequel to the 2007 film was first announced at the 2008 30 Years of Terror Convention" - just a matter of taste, but the year next to the number 30 slightly jars visually; I would suggest something like announced in 2008 at the 30 Years of Terror Convention or at the 30 Years of Terror Convention in 2008, but it's up to you.
"at the time Zombie passed..." It seems a little strange that the sequel was announced when at the same time Zombie's saying he's not going to make a sequel. It's made clear later in the article that the announcement was made by someone else, but this is a little confusing in the lead.
"Two years later..." - in 2010?
same sentence - did the Weinsteins and and Akkad secure a deal with Zombie, or did the four of them secure a deal with someone else? If it's the former, change it to something like Bob and Harvey Weinstein, Malek Akkad, and Rob Zombie, who had a renewed interest in the film, made a deal for the director to return. To me, one secures a deal with someone else. Do you see what I mean? Let me know if not!
"and the idea that they both share similar psychological problems." -> and the idea that they share similar psychological problems.
"the theme was only included with the final shot of the sequel." -> the theme was only included in the final shot of the sequel.

Plot

Who's Deborah Myers in relation to Michael? Mention that she's his mother.
"Michael explains that the horse reminds him of a dream" - "explains" indicates that an explanation was needed. Try Michael says or Michael tells her.
"Moving ahead fifteen years, Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton) is found wandering around in a state of shock and covered in blood after having shot Michael (Tyler Mane) until Sheriff Brackett (Brad Dourif) finds and takes her to the emergency room." - something's not quite right with this sentence. Taking out the middle bit, you have: "Laurie Strode is found wandering around... until Sheriff Brackett finds and takes her to the emergency room." Try something like Moving ahead fifteen years, after having shot Michael (Tyler Mane), Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton) is found wandering around in a state of shock and covered in blood by Sheriff Brackett (Brad Dourif). He takes her to the emergency room. OR Fifteen years later, Laureie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton) is wandering around in a state of shock and covered in blood after having shot Michael (Tyler Mane). She is found by Sheriff Brackett (Brad Dourif) who takes her to the emergency room.
Consider linking emergency room. It's up to you, but the term is not that familiar to many people outside the US (unless they are fans of ER!) Or you could use the term emergency department - that would be clearer.
"who are still alive after their attacks by Michael" - assumes the reader already knows about the attacks. Try who are still alive after having been attacked by Michael
"when the driver wrecks the transport" - is this an accident? Forgive me if this is obvious, but may be a transatlantic issue. To me, it's not clear whether or not the driver went and wrecked the ambuance on purpose for some reason, or got into an accident.
"Meanwhile, Michael has been seeing visions of Deborah's ghost" - presumably all visions are seen? Meanwhile, Michael has been having visions of Deborah's ghost
"criticism from people who blame him for Michael's actions and exploiting the deaths of Michael's victims." -> criticism from people who blame him for Michael's actions and for exploiting the deaths of Michael's victims.
"Before Laurie can escape, Michael kills the driver" - this could be clearer. Is she already in the car? Have they set off, or does he prevent her even getting in the car? Also, there's quite a lot of repetition of the word Laurie over a few sentences. Some of them could be replaced by pronouns.
"Michael takes the unconscious Laurie to an abandoned shed he has been camped out in" looks wrong to me. This may be an English variation issue, and if it is correct in US English, then please ignore this, but I think the tense should be Michael takes the unconscious Laurie to an abandoned shed he has been camping out in
"As she pulls the mask off, Laurie transitions..." - not having seen the film, this isn't 100% clear. Maybe something like As she pulls the mask off, the scene transitions to Laurie in isolation in a psychiatric ward... (It this is what you mean).

Production

Development

"Akkad suggested" - sounds a little vague. I don't think you should worry too much about finding synonyms for "said". I think "said" works pretty well in most situations.

Casting

"Tyler Mane would be returning as Michael Myers, as well as Malcolm McDowell in the role of Dr. Loomis, and Scout Taylor-Compton and Danielle Harris returning as Laurie Strode and Annie Brackett, respectively. Halloween II also saw the return of Sheri Moon Zombie as Deborah Myers, Michael's mother" - I would change slightly to Tyler Mane would be returning as Michael Myers, with Malcolm McDowell in the role of Dr. Loomis, and Scout Taylor-Compton and Danielle Harris returning as Laurie Strode and Annie Brackett, respectively. Halloween II also saw the return of Sheri Moon Zombie as Deborah Myers, Michael's mother
"According to Zombie, the director had to recast the role, much to his own dismay" -> Zombie had to recast the role, much to his own dismay
"Although Faerch is not in the sequel, the first trailer for Halloween II contained images of Faerch, but Zombie pointed out that those images were test shots done and were not intended to be in either the trailer or the film." The "although" doesn't go well with the "but" I would split into two sentences: Although Faerch is not in the sequel, the first trailer for Halloween II contained images of Faerch. Zombie pointed out that those images were test shots done and were not intended to be in either the trailer or the film.
"Zombie clarified" - a bit repetitive after Taylor-Compton clarifying in the same section. Did he need to clarify? Could it just be "Zombie said"?
"Even Sheriff Brackett goes through his own changes" -> Sheriff Brackett goes through his own changes OR Even Sheriff Brackett goes through changes
"Even Sheriff Brackett goes through his own changes. Brackett, who receives more screen time in this film" -> Unnecessary repetition of "Brackett"?
Who's Vincent Bugliosi and why is he being channeled? Obviously there's an article, so you don't have to explain too much, but a word (or two) to indicate who he is would help.
"which is being used, according to Taylor-Compton, as a means to illustrate a new emotion" -> which is being used, according to Taylor-Compton, to illustrate a new emotion
Could you clarify what the new look is and how it's what emotion it's illustrating?
"Zombie pointed out..." - again, seems an unnecessary synonym for "said".
At the end of this section, Zombie is saying that Michael is the only character who doesn't change. This contradicts the early part where it says "The two main characters, Michael and Laurie, go through their own changes in the sequel" and then "all of the characters have changed".
For of the characters discussed in this section, the actors aren't mentioned, so the section title should reflect this. "Casting & characters" or something.

Filming

"Zombie described the sequel... The writer/director has said that he is trying to create almost the exact opposite of what people will expect." - a bit of a mixture of tenses here. "He described", "he has said", "he is trying". Could be a bit more consistent.
"As Loomis grasps at Michael's mask, and pleads for him to stop, Michael stabs Loomis in the stomach as he tells Loomis to "Die!"" - bit too much "Loomis"? What about As Loomis grasps at Michael's mask, and pleads for him to stop, Michael stabs him in the stomach, telling him to "Die!"

Music

"Zombie also utilized pop culture songs" - what do you mean by popular culture songs? it sounds slightly strange. Pop songs? Popular songs?
"According to Zombie, he chose songs that he liked" - I don't think you need "According to Zombie" when you would expect that this information came from him.
"is set to be released in conjunction with Halloween II on August 28, 2009" - this needs updating.

Release

Box office

"As of November 24, 2009" - needs updating.

MoS

The infobox mentions a budget, which is not mentioned in the article. This should be mentioned in the article with reference, and then it doesn't need a ref in the infobox.
At the moment, the lead section doesn't summarise the entire article with appropriate weight. Specifically the casting section, filming section and box office section are under represented in the lead.

References to sources

I can't get the following to work:

No. 4 [1]
No. 17 [2]
No. 23 [3]
No. 24 [4]

Citation of reliable sources

Infobox

Is it necessary to provide a citation for the run time? Isn't that easy enough to verify anyway? It appears to be the same on IMDb.
The gross revenue number is cited in the article so doesn't need to be here.

Production

Development

The sentence beginning "In an interview, Zombie expressed..." doesn't appear to be referenced.
The following sentence "The writer/director explained that with the sequel ..." has the reference #7, shocktillyoudrop [5] - this doesn't back up that sentence. Has the webpage changed?

Release

Critical reception

The "cream of the crop" score of 18% differs from the reference.

General

Direct quotes need citing directly afterwards. Some shorter ones could probably be paraphrased to avoid quoting.

"normal sequel"
"lost in translation"
"these bipolar moments"
"these really dark places"
more of a "sellout"...
"just wouldn't feel right" to the director.

Breadth of coverage

On the whole, the article is broad in coverage, and I think the production section's great. The Critical reception section though, needs some expansion. You need summaries of some key reviews. Apparently not everyone hated it, so who, if anyone, thought it was any good? What in particular did reviewers not like about the film? Something more along the lines of Halloween (2007 film) and Friday the 13th (2009 film).

A further comment following your message at my talkpage. I should have been clearer; in pointing out the other two films above, I'd like to see the reception section more like that. Those films are further along the line to comprehensiveness, so I'm not expecting that amount of detail, just a little bit more than there is now. As it stands, I don't think it is quite broad enough. I guess we disagree on that point; At the moment all I know is that critics hated the film. I have no idea why though (especially having not seen the film myself). I'd like to see what a couple of people thought - maybe from NYT or Variety. Does anything in particular stand out from the reviews that a lot of them picked up on? Just another few lines would satisfy me here. Again, I'm not looking for the detail you have in those other examples, just a little extra.

Overall

Great article, I enjoyed reading it. The biggest problem I can see is the reception section which needs more. I think the concerns I've outlined will be easily addressed.--Beloved Freak 21:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've address all your concerns. I've added a few reviews to the critical reception section. I plan to fill it all out with additional reviews, I just don't have a lot of time to do it all right now. I wanted to get enough to address your concerns. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding issues

You've addressed nearly all of my concerns. The reception section looks great, and I don't doubt you'll put more work into it. I'm nearly ready to pass it, just a few little things outstanding:

Right at the beginning of the plot, Deborah Myers visits Michael Myers, but it's unclear who they are to each other.
I see the infobox still has three citations. Is there a reason? Two of them are cited in the text, and one of them (the running time) doesn't seem to warrant a citation. I can't see that that would be controversial, unless there are different numbers quoted in different sources.
In the Production / development section, this sentence: "In an interview, Zombie expressed how the exhaustion of creating the first Halloween made him not want to come back for a sequel, but after a year of cooling down he was more open to the idea." - I can't see which source that comes from. Unless I'm just being blind, and it comes from no. 7 which follows the next sentence (and please let me know if that's the case!), it needs a citation.
In the Critical reception section, "Among Rotten Tomatoes' Top Critics ... the film holds an overall approval rating of 17%." Does it? WHen I click on the reference, the "tomatometer" says 00%, and next to it says Reviews counted: 4; Fresh: 0; Rotten: 4. Average rating 2.8/10. I've also just noticed that the site automatically takes me to http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/. Am I seeing a different page to you?

Well done on the work you've done. If you can address, or answer, these concerns, then that'll be everything!--Beloved Freak 15:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the plot section. I totally forgot about that when I was going through it. I removed the citations from the infobox. The time was cited originally before the movie came out, and it was never removed. I sourced the production info. I went to when the page was first created and it wasn't cited there, so I found a source where he talks about being tired after the first film. As for the Top Critics thing, you should be going to this page. I don't know why you're being redirected to the UK page. The number you see if reflective of the US Rotten Tomatoes page, which says 17% ( 2 Fresh and 10 Rotten). The regular rating is 21%. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and well done. That's everything. (Except for the side issue of Rotten Tomatoes, which I'm very annoyed with! anyway...) Good luck with further development on the article.--Beloved Freak 16:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]