Talk:The Cabin in the Woods/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi - I'll make copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, Earwig's copyvio has inflated scores from (attributed) quotes.

• There are several one-sentence paragraphs. See if they can go with other paragraphs or be expanded.

• As it stands, it lacks a bit of depth - we have a plot and reviews but I think some more meat on the motivations of the creators, influences etc. and legacy etc. See here, here, here and here for starters.

Additional sources to explore Suggestion

These three academic sources contain additional information on the film which would benefit the article. Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  14:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed

• Mayo, Andrea (2014). "Sacrificing Youth for A Fabricated Humanity: Governance, Youth and Onto-Theology in The Cabin in the Woods" (PDF). International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior. 17 (2): 236–263. ISSN 1093-4537.

Doctoral Dissertations

• Hetland, Timothy John (May 2016). "The Cabin in the Woods and Horror's Emergent Body Commodity". A Technology of Violence: Materiality, Discourse, and Victim Functionality in the Contemporary Horror Genre (Ph.D. thesis). Pullman, WA: Washington State University. pp. 95–129. Document No.10139685 – via ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

• Martin, Marianna (2014). "'Let's Get This Party Started': Genre Units and the Ludic-Ana-Lytic Mode in B-Movie Card Games and The Cabin in the Woods". Reading the Cards: Contemporary Genre Practice and Digital Audiences (Ph.D. thesis). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. pp. 14–51. Document No.3668275 – via ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

@MagicatthemovieS: are you gonna take a look at this and try to work on it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll take care of this within the next month or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs) 02:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Procedural note: Apparently the nominator has neglected his duty to resolve the concerns raised by the reviewer, as the article has not had an edit since the review was initiated. I think it's safe to say that this nomination be closed. Slightlymad 08:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The comment "The next month or so" is not what a nominator should be saying. Reviews should be done in 1-14 days usually unless serious issues are present. Failing unless someone comes forward with continuation — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanAir88 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - comprehensiveness, particularly out-of-universe material, is wanting. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)