Talk:Get Out/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DJ-Joker16 (talk · contribs) 10:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I am quite familiar with the film and will do my best to review this article in its entirety within the next few days. Keep in mind just because I am familiar with the film and I did enjoy it thoroughly, I will not be reviewing it based on that, but rather the merit of the article. Just wanted to make that clear. Here we go! Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

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:
· · ·

This reviewer made his last edit on 24 August 2018. I hope someone else picks up the article for reviewing. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: I could do this, sure. Jerry (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• How is this review going. Do we have a new reviewer? AIRcorn (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Aircorn, unfortunately JerrySa1 hasn't edited since January 2, a few days after posting the above, so we don't have a new reviewer. Someone who's ready to dig in is what's needed here. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• My list is getting quite long now, but I will add this to it. If Jerry comes back earlier then they should feel free to jump in. AIRcorn (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

New Review

• I feel the plot can be tightened a bit. Ideally it should follow themes, some of it seems to jump around the place a bit. Chronology can be good, but it should not be used religously if it breaks the flow. The early part of the plot needs to establish the subtle racism and Roses apparent tolerance. I feel Rose is a bit shortchanged in general in the plot summary. The deer does this, but it could be expanded on with the discomforting comments (I am not sure discomfiting is right, particularly at the start). An example could be used or a general tone elaborated on. Then the strange behaviour of the Black staff. The mention of it and then the description of some is split by a paragraph. Unplugging the phone is mentioned, but doesn't really go anywhere. In fact it later talks about him calling his friend so it doesn't impact the plot. Unless it is meant to draw attention to the strange behaviour (although it does not seem that strange when reading about it). The auction is sort of sandwiched between taking the photo and the sending of the photo. It is a pretty big development and probably deserves to start a paragraph. It can be hard to write plot summaries and most of this is fine. This is just some thoughts I had while reading it. Length is fine so you have soe room to play around with it
• The collection also includes pictures of Rose with Walter and Georgina. It has been a while since I watched it and I can't think of why this is important. Either way in the context of this plot summary it is not made clear.
• After killing Missy and Jeremy as well Wasn't Jeremy knocked out a couple of sentences earlier.
• not realizing she is possessed by Rose's grandmother Marianne. Again I don't completely remember this, but he just watched a video of how minds are transplanted and knows Georgina was acting strangely. He is established as a smart person so does he really not realise she is possessed by someone.
• I was shooting a movie with Keegan-Michael Key. This quote got quite confusing. First I wasn't initiially sure who it was quoting. Second it uses multiple quotes within quotes. And thirdly it runs over nine sentences. Either it needs rewriting or if it is going to be kept verbatim I would suggest a quote box or another way to make it more obvious.
• That party sequence is why I really wanted to do this film, because I've been to that party What party scene. I have watched that episode and even I can't remember the party scene.
• A general overuse of quotes in this section, particullarly long ones
• Again a lot of long quotes under filming.
• Okay I am going to stop here. Discounting the plot and the lead over half this article is quotes. That is far too much, and in fact falls into WP:QUOTEFARM territory. I feel this needs to be rewritten and there is no point reviewing the text if it needs to be substantially changed. It needs to be paraphased better.
• Also the see also section seems to contain a lot of films. I dn't think this is a great use of the see also as it is not made clear how these relate and any film is going to have lots of similar ones. Better linking to lists
• Aso this was a widely acclaimed movie, yet I feel the reception doesn't get that across well enough.

I am sorry but this article is too far away from being a good article to even hold at this stage. I understand you have waited a long time for a review and have had multiple editors start, but not finish it. I am sorry about that, but the overuse of quotations means too much needs to change in order for this to pass. I would suggest yuou work through that and any other issues and then resubmit it to WP:GAN