Wikipedia:Peer review/The Texas Chain Saw Massacre/archive5

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for ways to improve the article after it's last FA nominaton, and want to bring it to FAC again before the end of the year, preferably in a few months time at the most.

Thanks, TÆRkast (Communicate) 19:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Cryptic C62

Hey mate, I see from WP:PR that this review is at risk of being auto-archived, so I figured I'd try to at least give you something useful. I also took a look at the monstrous mess that was the article's previous FAC, and it's clear to me that this article is close to the FA mark and you just need a helping hand. Most of my review work comes in the form of prose tweaks and copyedits, which I suppose is helpful, but I know that that wasn't the major issue at the previous FAC. So, before I get to work improving the article's readability, let me ask you this: what issues from the FAC have you worked to improve, and which do you think still require work? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the most important issues coming out of the FAC was referencing issues, some of which I didn't really agree with, but I think I've sorted out the most pressing issues in that department, so that's not really the issue anymore. I'm not really happy with the intro, though, I feel like the three paragraphs could be fleshed out a bit more, but I'm not good in that department. I also think another copyedit might be useful.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 13:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been asked to take a look at the article. I've only glanced at the lede and yes, there is work to do here. I will try to give you specifics in the next few days, but that long list of actors in the second sentence put me to sleep. Unless they are real famous, cut it to three.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I do think the lead needs expansion as well. As a side note, but it seems like this article is going to take a lifetime and more to reach FA status. I sometimes wonder if it's worth it.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 16:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's worth it. The propagation of knowledge is one of the few things that really matter in the long run. If you didn't believe that, you wouldn't be editing, would you? :P Anywho, I think the best plan of action will be for me to start copyediting/prose reviewing the body of the article. Once I've done that and become more familiar with the content, I'll try to give some feedback on how to expand the lead. Sound good?

Sounds good.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 13:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved issues

Quote box: "where [the] once vibrant myth [of frontier] is dessciated." Was the typo "dessciated" present in the original source, or was there an error in transcription? I think it was a typo on my part.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 13:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC) "The concept for the film arose in the early 1970s, while Hooper worked..." I think Hooper's full name should be spelled out here. I don't see anything in the MOS about this issue, but my general rule of thumb has always been to give full names in the lead and in the first instance in the body in case the reader skips the lead. "who also served as the inspiration for a number of other horror films" Such as? "Many of the cast members were relatively unknown actors" I suggest appending this phrase with "at the time" or "prior to this film" or something similar. "Icelandic-American actor Gunnar Hansen gained the role of Leatherface." I think "gained" is a weird choice of word for this sentence. I would replace it with "was selected for". "As a result of the small budget, the crew filmed seven days a week..." I'm not sure I understand how the small budget would require filming seven days a week. Was it to save money on equipment rentals? In the first paragraph of Filming, there are a few sentences that should be rearranged. "The house used for the film..." is about the house, "The film was shot mainly using..." is about the camera, but then "The largest proportion of the filming..." is about the house again. The information about the house should all be contiguous. "Pie in the Sky (P.I.T.S.) donated $23,532 in exchange for 19% of Vortex's half of the profits. This left Henkel and Hooper as co-owners of 45% of the profits, and the remaining 36% was divided among 20 cast and crew members." These numbers are very confusing and misleading. All three percentages are actually half-percentages because half of the profits belong to MAB, but only the first sentence makes this explicitly clear. I suggest halving the second two percentages and adding a word: "Pie in the Sky (P.I.T.S.) donated $23,532 in exchange for 19% of Vortex's half of the profits. This left Henkel and Hooper as co-owners of 23.5% of the total profits, and the remaining 18% was divided among 20 cast and crew members." As to the figures, they are confusing, so I've tried to implement your changes. Thanks, --Tærkast (Communicate) 15:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC) "Burns' costume was so drenched with stage blood that it was virtually solid on the last day of shooting." What does "virtually solid" mean? The literal meaning of "Virtually" does not apply here, nor does the literal meaning of "solid". As for the comment about the costume, we go with what the source says. Perhaps it could be reworded.--Tærkast (Communicate) 15:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC) One other option would be to put "virtually solid" in quotation marks, assuming that's how the phrase appears in the source. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC) "In February 1976, theatres in Ottawa, Canada, were asked by the local authority to withdraw The Texas Chain Saw Massacre due to concerns about increasing levels of violence being associated by the public with the film." What does "increasing levels of violence being associated by the public with the film" mean? Assuming I understand it correctly, here's a rewrite: "In February 1976, theatres in Ottawa, Canada, were asked by the local authority to withdraw The Texas Chain Saw Massacre due to growing concerns about the amount of violence portrayed in the film." "the film was reissued to first-run theaters" What is a first-run theater? "Greater Union Organisation (GUO) Film Distributors were refused registration for a 2283.4 ft (83m 27s) print in July 1981." It seems rather odd to me that the primary unit of measurement for this fact is in feet. Also, why is this print given a time in minutes and seconds while the others are all just in minutes? "Rebecca Ascher-Walsh believed the film ..." Who is this? The other people are all mentioned alongside their respective publications, but this gives no hint as to what makes Ascher-Walsh a reputable source. Made all those changes. I added a link to movie theater#programming which explains what a first-run theater is.--Tærkast (Communicate) 17:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC) "On August 28, 1974, Louis Peraino of Bryanston offered Bozman and Skaaren a contract of $225,000 and 35% of the profits from the worldwide distribution of the film." I don't understand who is gaining what here. The best interpretation that I can come up with is that Peraino distributed the film and kept 65% of the profits, then gave $225k and 35% to Bozman/Skaaren to divide amongst themselves and their crew. Is this correct? As far as I know, yes.--Tærkast (Communicate) 17:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Here's one rewording that may make this clearer: "On August 28, 1974, Louis Peraino of Bryanston agreed to distribute the film worldwide, from which Bozman and Skaaren would receive $225,000 and 35% of the profits." You like? "In 2006, Avatar Press lost the license to the DC Comics imprint Wildstorm" How exactly does one go about losing a license? I suggest replacing "lost" with "sold". Another possibility would be to say that "the franchise was relicensed to the DC Comics imprint Wildstorm". "The first sequel was considerably more graphic and violent than the original film" What was the name of the first sequel? The reader should not have to navigate to the franchise article just to find this piece of information. "The film was a semi-remake of the original" What does this mean? OK done, thanks.--Tærkast (Communicate) 22:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Considering how many different sources provide information about the production process, I imagine that somewhere in the literature there would be some commentary regarding how ridiculously demanding and unsafe the filming process was compared to today's movies. A modern film studio using union actors and technicians would never have 16-hour working days, and they certainly wouldn't have a running chainsaw 3 inches from an actor's face. Such information would be helpful for a reader who isn't aware of how much the movie industry has changed since the 1970s.

  Most of those issues have been resolved except for the possible commentary about the safety of the crew, as far as I know, there isn't anything specific that would cover that. --TÆRkast (Communicate) 13:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

  Okey doke. If you do happen to come across such commentary, I think the article would definitely benefit from its inclusion. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Made those changes so far. Thanks, --TÆRkast (Communicate) 13:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty, I'm happy with the readability of the prose. As for the lead, here are some interesting points that could be added to beef it up:

• Hooper's reasons for why the film was falsely advertised as being true
• The absurd conditions the cast and crew endured throughout the filming process
• The film was initially banned in several countries
• A bit more plot synopsis
• The MoMA added the film to its permanent collection

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see what I can do, although I'm not that comfortable editing the lead, it's not my strong point.--Tærkast (Communicate) 17:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the added lead material. I've gone through and touched it up a bit. At this point I'm happy with the article; is there anything else you'd like feedback on? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No, everything looks good. Thanks for your comments, it's been helpful.--Tærkast (Communicate) 13:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case...

Awesome! Once again, thanks! D'you think it's about ready for FA? --Tærkast (Communicate) 16:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably, but I think it would be in your best interest to find at least one other uninvolved editor to take a look at the article. I'm sure there are plenty of reviewers who would find issues that neither of us noticed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, although the sourcing was the big problem at it's last FAC, but I cleaned that up. So I'm thinking of taking it to FA again soon(ish), hopefully will be more successful this time round. Perhaps a copyedit is needed.--Tærkast (Communicate) 12:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)