Talk:Son of Frankenstein/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 15:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'll be assessing this article using the GA-criteria. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 15:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basic stuff and comments

@Andrzejbanas: Here's the first set of suggestions. Ping me when you're done or have added comments. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 16:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the infobox, a reference is needed for the film's budget. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 15:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the purpose of the infobox is supplement information in the article. In this case as you mentioned, the budget, it is mentioned and sourced in the prose. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the infobox, "13 January 1939" should be changed to "January 13, 1939" to be consistent with the rest of the article. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 15:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office Mojo states that the film is also a science fiction film. Add that to the lead. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 15:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like using genre sources from anonymously written sources where it is not clear that they viewer in question has seen the film. From what I've seen, the film is predominantly described in terms of the horror film. If I could find more specific sources from reviewers who have seen the film, i'd be happy to add it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The film's summary in the lead's 1st paragraph is almost the same size as the summary in the plot section. Try to shorten it. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 15:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've shrunk it a bit. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the cast section, a reference to the film's entry in the American Film Institute should be added. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 15:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are! Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dates (and years) should be added to the sentence ending in "two-year break". Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 15:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what specific date you are asking for here, the source doesn't go into detail beyond its two year off period. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when did this two-year break take place? Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 19:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to expand on that to make it more clear. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's an "additional aspect of the film", I would suggest mentioning the fact that this film was the last to star Basil Rathbone as Baron Wolf von Frankenstein in the lead section of this article. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 15:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel this is too important, it's the only film this character appears in. It's not discussed in the article and the character is not really that important to the series. Feels a bit trivial. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the second and final image in the article, a link should be made to Realart in the caption. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 15:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Rotten Tomatoes" critical consensus should be moved to the top in "Reception." Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 15:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually agree in this case, I feel it provides a proper summary of the general section of reviews as even today, this film either gets great or mixed reviews. The Rotten Tomatoes ranking is also a hybrid of contemporary and retrospective reviews (specifically a Harrison's Reports review and a Variety review for older reviews. So putting above both retrospective or contemporary reviews might be a bit misleading for readers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case, it can be left where it is, but please change the "37" to "38". Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 19:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated! Good catch! Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas: Since this article is already near-GA-status, my final request is that you archive the article's sources (which I suggest doing using this tool instead of doing it manually). Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 19:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hey. Couldn't quite get the tool to work, but I archived the pages manually. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·