Talk:Soultaker (film)

68.59.229.34 (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Wow, someone sure has it out for MST3K, haha.

What I can see so far

So far it's well written. I have not checked to see if the sources are correct or not, but the layout is fine.

First of all, I would say to expand the reception section if possible and find more good/bad reviews from critics, also add the reference to the 0% Rotten Tomatoes rating, then it should be good; second, shorten the plot so that it's just below 700 words because the summary is at 748, just use an online word counting website to trim the excess wording; and third (this one is easily done), remove the red links unless the actors/director are notable enough for their own article. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 01:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Is this a review for the article for GAN? GamerPro64 02:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh no, It's just some things I noticed about the article that could be fixed. Sorry... I did, however, get here from the GA nominations page. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 03:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Soultaker (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: NowIsntItTime (talk · contribs) 10:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I have not seen this film, but I have read the full article and checked it out to determine whether this article meets the GA criteria. Here we go. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 05:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Plot has minor grammar/structure mistakes that can be fixed. Will place the ones I've found at the bottom.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Only thing that stood out to me was a template to a twitter post reference. It may be proper, but I'd like to see an archive to the original Shout! Factory page. Still passing it though so no worries if it's not changed. No plagiarism/Copyvio detected; info is described in own words (preceding citations) or in quotes.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I'd say the reception needs to be expanded if possible. I noticed that Variety's Lawrence Cohn's review wasn't there, so fix that. If nothing can be found to increase its length then it's coverage is as broad as it can be and it passes this part. Same goes for the production section.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Bias is largely absent to my knowledge, as with the film's reviews, it succeeds in summarizing what they wrote.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No unstable editing in the past few months as far as I can see.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   One fair use image with a proper use rationale, no caption though but this can be fixed.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   U̶n̶l̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶d̶d̶i̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶l̶ ̶i̶n̶f̶o̶r̶m̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶d̶d̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶c̶e̶p̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶d̶u̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶,̶ ̶I̶'̶m̶ ̶g̶o̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶s̶t̶i̶c̶k̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶o̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶i̶m̶p̶l̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶s̶u̶e̶s̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶g̶r̶a̶m̶m̶a̶r̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶m̶e̶s̶s̶y̶ ̶s̶e̶n̶t̶e̶n̶c̶e̶s̶ ̶n̶e̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶f̶i̶x̶e̶d̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶h̶o̶l̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶b̶a̶c̶k̶ ̶f̶r̶o̶m̶ ̶b̶e̶c̶o̶m̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶G̶A̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶t̶u̶s̶.̶

The plot has some minor grammar mistakes like in the sentence "Zack and Natalie 'tells' her about the Soultaker.", two uses of the word "that" next to each other, "Natalie tries to shoots the Soultaker but to no effect.", and a few others. Fix these and I think it'll be fine.

There are still sentences that need to be changed, like these: "he claims he is an angel charged with collecting the souls of the dying." You might want to change this to something like "he claims he is an angel sent to collect dying souls." "The Soultaker pleads with the Angel but is collected into a soul ring by his master." Just change the wording here, maybe "placed into a soul ring by his master" or something that sounds a bit better than "collected".

The production has a sentence with the intro "As well as scripting the film," that kind of bothered me. Please change it to something like this: "As well as writing the script for the film,". -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 05:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Did all that you said here. GamerPro64 20:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Perfect; I'll check that off in my review then. The only problem I can visually see now is in the reception, it has to have two things: Its famous 0% Rotten Tomatoes score rating, and in your own words, what Lawrence Cohn said about the film.

Once you do the above, that could be enough for it to pass. I'll have to get a second opinion to confirm or deny my fears of details that still need to be added to the production and reception section. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 21:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

My problem with adding the Rotten Tomatoes score is that it is based on four reviews. And none of the reviews are any of the ones used here for the article. It does not reflect original consensus back in 1990. GamerPro64 22:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I see. Well, just make sure the other stuff I mentioned is addressed then. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 01:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and spoke to User:Ceranthor (who is a GA mentor) for a second opinion. They are concerned whether the Twitter reference for Volume XIV of MST3K should be used per WP:RS, though I have asked them about using a clarified reference for the dead link to fix this.

The Rotten Tomatoes score can be used alongside the four reviews, but you should clarify in the article that it is based on those four reviews specifically. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 01:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I can add the RT score and mention the specifications. But with the tweet, it's from the official Twitter account to Shout Factory. There are no articles about the discontinuation of the boxset or them losing the rights to the episode. I would think hearing from the horses mouth would suffice. GamerPro64 02:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Understandable. I didn't know about this, but I actually went and check it out and found out the source is properly used under WP:TWITTER as long as "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources." so I believe you were right all along. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 02:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• The lead needs to be reworked a bit. The first sentence, "oultaker is a 1990 American fantasy horror film about a group of young adults whose souls are ejected from their bodies after a car accident and must flee from the titular Soultaker (Joe Estevez) before their bodies are removed from life support machines." is too long and uninformative. Take a look at movie articles who have achieved GA status as an example. Usually, the first sentence talks about the genre, year of release, director. It if belongs to a franchise, it is also mentioned there. I will try and do another read of the article soon. → Call me Razr Nation 03:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 03:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I added the Rotten Tomatoes score to the article. Where is the article at now? GamerPro64 03:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, that's good then. Just as a note, I looked at your talk page a couple days ago. I see that user Paleface Jack originally suggested some book references you could use, and that was addressed as nothing too substantial, so nothing to worry about. Overall, the production and reception then becomes as broad as can be. If nothing can be found until some new sources are published sometime in the future then we'll just have to add it in said future. I am passing it. Good job! -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 04:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)