Talk:The Hideous Sun Demon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 16:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

How can I turn down reviewing an article with a title like that? I'm a big horror fan, but scifi horror isn't really my thing; I've not seen this film. Full review to follow later this evening... Josh Milburn (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• The lead is a little short for an article of this length.
• On the other side of the coin, the lead is a little long; it's right at the top of the recommended word count for plot sections and I wouldn't say that the plot is particularly complex.
• disconsolate is a wonderful word, but perhaps a little obscure?
• "Unable to contact Gil, Ann drives to the manor to deliver Hoffman's letter. After radiation poisoning studies offer no leads on solving Gil's own particular symptoms, the distraught scientist contemplates suicide, but soon changes his mind. Instead, Gil returns to the bar where Trudy joins him for a drink and comments that the evening is not over because it is "never late until the sun comes up."" I feel I lose the narrative here.
• "When bar patron George insinuates that he has purchased Trudy's company for the evening with whom she rebuffs," I'm not sure this makes sense. And who plays George?
• "but Ann's pleading reluctantly convinces him" The pleading is reluctant? This needs to be rephrased.
• "by young Suzy who offers" A child? Who plays Suzy?
• If all the actors are mentioned in the plot section, you don't really need a cast section.
• I'm guessing that your Patrick Whyte link isn't going to the right place.
• I've removed the poster for the earlier film. The usage was clearly in violation of non-free content criteria 8 and 10c. If you want an image for the section, use a free one; an image of Robert Louis Stevenson would be a possibility.
• "(although some sources, including Clarke himself, say his friend Phil Hiner co-wrote the first draft)[1]" If that reference is specifically for the content in the brackets, it should be inside the closing bracket.
• "Tom Boutross served as co-director. Boutross later [1][4] The main character's" What's going on here?
• "The main character's home in the film was located on Lafayette Boulevard in Los Angeles, which is no longer standing." The Boulevard is no longer standing? Or the house that was used is no longer standing? I think this sentence needs some work.
• "The film was Clarke's first and only effort as writer or director.[4][10]" Important, but I feel it should probably go elsewhere?
• "Destination Outer Space" Year? Wikilink? Don't be scared of redlinks, by the way; if a film is notable, a link is valuable.
• You don't mention anywhere in the article proper that the film was ever billed as The Sun Demon, a title you mention in the first line of the lead.
• "It currently has a negative 3.7 out of 10 on IMDb." Unreliable. Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes are good, but IMDb user reviews are not.
• "the film distinguishes itself from other 1950s radioactive monster films by being an allegory for alcoholism" What? Really? Why has this not been mentioned yet?
• ""Hideous Sun Demon (1959)". Rovi Corporation. Retrieved 25 September 2014 – via The New York Times." What's going on with this reference? The link doesn't go anywhere useful, and I'm not sure I understand what it is that you're citing.
• "The film also starred John Schuyler as the film's hero and Burns' wife Kathy" Schuyler starred as Kathy?
• I'm really struggling the parody section. Why not discuss one parody and then the other? Two separate paragraphs? As it is, it's very difficult to follow.
• I really hate "in popular culture" bullet point lists. Why not have a prose subsection of "Legacy" entitled something like "In other media"?

Not at all a bad article. I'm yet to look in detail at the sources, but I need to head off right now. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, looking at the references/external links:

• Your Rotten Tomatoes link isn't going anywhere
• The link on the following sources do not work:
  • "Hideous-Sun-Demon - Trailer - Cast - Showtimes - NYTimes.com". New York Times.com. New York Times.com. Retrieved 25 September 2014.
• McFarland or McFarland and Company? Why link one and not the others?
• Are you sold on having the locations and publishers on magazines/journals? I wouldn't say it's necessary.
• I don't mind the cite to Amazon; others might. Do you perhaps have a reference that isn't a shop?
• Your Leonard Maltin source needs some attention.
• Same with your "Various Authors" source. Is it necessary? Self-published books are normally not good sources.
• Your Robert G. Weiner/Shelley E. Barba source needs looking at. If that's an edited collection, you should cite the particular chapter rather than the book as a whole. Same for the Rhodes source and any other books you're citing which are edited collections.
• Your Sumiko Higashi source isn't really complete.
• Page number for Cobb?

But, all in all, this looks good. I'm happy that the sources are reliable and appropriate for an article of this sort. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Paleface Jack wrote most of the content, so he could probably give more informed feedback. But I think I can explain some of the idiosyncrasies and minor issues.

• If I remember correctly, I wrote the lead. I'm not so good at writing leads, and I tried to err on the side of conciseness on this article because the last time I wrote a lead, it came out a bit too verbose. We could probably flesh this out with a few more details. I wasn't sure what to say about the film's reception, since we don't really have any aggregators that can tell us.
• The citation format is a little inconsistent because multiple editors worked on the article; I think we can standardize on one style without too much trouble. "McFarland & Company" is what's recommended at WP:McFarland, so I usually go with that (and link it).
• The Allmovie citation (formerly to The New York Times, which is now a dead link/redirect) is to establish the film as having a cult following, but I think we could probably find a stronger citation if necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

GA Review Reply

Thanks so much for all the help with this article, it took a lot of work to fix and expand. The only real question I have at the moment is why the images I had added to the article were removed and if there would be any images that would be important enough to add to the article. I might expand the article a bit more, namely adding an account from the director on its distribution and financial troubles.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Non-free images can only be used if they meet certain (deliberately) strict criteria. It's generally held that a single poster/cover image is acceptable in an article about a film, but more than that requires clear justification. File:Theastoundingshemonster.jpg is a poster for another film; I really can't see any reason as to why we need to know what that film's poster looked like in order to understand this article (and I note that there wasn't even an attempt at a rationale on the image page). Similar is true for the screenshot, but I suppose it could be kept and readded to the article if it was public domain, which it may be on the basis of {{PD-text}}. I have no objection to any freely-licensed images being added to the article, but I'm struggling to see why any other non-free images would be justified; an image of the monster might have been appropriate if we had some extensive discussion of it, for example, but we don't. Anyway, do let me know when you've looked into the issues I've outlined above and I can take another look. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

We still need an image for use in the article, look at images used in articles on films like Halloween and Night of the Blood Beast sice their usage is what I'm going for. As for looking into the issues, I'll get right on it although it might be a little while.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

We certainly don't need an image for the article body, but there'd be no problem if someone added a free-use image. Given that many of those involved in this film do not have Wikipedia articles, you may struggle to find one. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I've added an image of Robert Louis Stevenson; other possibilities include an image of Leonard Maltin, Maxine King (of The King Sisters) or a screenshot from Night of the Living Dead. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Issues Addressed

So I read through your review Josh, and I fixed most of the issues listed there. Here is a list of the things I didn't bother fixing and the reasons for doing so:

• Didn't add the names of the actors that portray very minor characters in the film like Suzy because of their brief appearances in the film and as such I have left the cast section in the article due to this.

• I couldn't find the final issue that you listed in the article so I left it alone for now.

There is some more information on the film that can be added to the article. In the book Science Fiction and Fantasy Film Flashbacks: Conversations with 24 Actors, Writers, Producers and Directors from the Golden Age, which I have used in the article, I left out some information that can be added to the article because it was rather difficult to sort through. If anyone could add some information for there that would be helpful.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jack, thanks for this. I'm sorry if I'm being a dullard, but am I missing something? As far as I can see, you've only made a few small edits to the article since my review, and you don't seem to have resolved the majority of the issues above. To reply to your two specific comments: First, I'd be inclined to say that you should either include all actors in the plot section or none of them. If the former, you don't need a castlist, if the latter, the castlist can do the work. Second, the "final" point is either the one about The Hideous Sun Demon#In popular culture or the one about the following reference: "Cobb, Mark Hughes (October 22, 1990). "Bewitching Halloween Alternatives". The Tuscaloosa News.". Hope that clears things up a bit. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is my official reply to the review. All comments will follow the issues addressed:

• Article Lead-
• "Tom Boutross served as co-director. Boutross later [1][4] The main character's"- Not sure where this is.
  • Paragraph two of "Filming". It's still there! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• "The film was Clarke's first and only effort as writer or director.[4][10]"- Not sure I understand where I should put it.
  • Would it not fit better in the development section? Josh Milburn (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• The Sun Demon alternate title- Working on it.
• "the film distinguishes itself from other 1950s radioactive monster films by being an allegory for alcoholism"- I don't know where this is, don't recall ever adding that sentence to the article.
  • Reception section. CTRL+F is your friend. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• ""Hideous Sun Demon (1959)". Rovi Corporation. Retrieved 25 September 2014 – via The New York Times."- Neither do I, internet is acting weird right now so I cannot investigate the link at the moment.
• "The film also starred John Schuyler as the film's hero and Burns' wife Kathy"- Working on it.
• Parody section- Working on it.
• Popular Culture section- Don't really know how to fix that.
  • My suggestion, to repeat, is that you convert it into a prose subsection of "Legacy" entitled something like "In other media". Josh Milburn (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

It may be best for you to reply inline above so that we can keep track of which issues have/have not been fixed. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I will need some help working on resolving all the issues in this article since some of them I have no idea how to fix. Also I need help adding a few more details to the article like information on the film's release on VHS as well as adding a little more detail on the film's production. As for the issues that I have already resolved, I will post them in full detail in a little while.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem- I'm happy to help where possible; if you note on the list of comments above which particular issues you're struggling with, I'll see what can be done. If I get too involved in the article, I can close the review and it can be renominated. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Resolved/Unresolved Issues List

Here is a list of the issues that are both resolved and have yet to be resolved. Note: I will still need help with some of these issues as well as the things mentioned in my previous reply. Update: Some of my edits were reverted because they were apparently in the correct format, because of this some of the reviewer's listed issues will not be fixed. I will list which issues that I have resolved and were reverted.

Resolved

• Plot Issues - Some edits were reverted.

• Citation placement issues- Edits were reverted.

• Links to other films mentioned in the article- Partially resolved (some edits were reverted).

• Popular culture bullet style- Removed bullet points and added to the Legacy section.

• IMDb score: Removed.

• New York Times reference- Removed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Lead Section- Expanded a bit.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Leonard Maltin ref Issues- Fixed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Unresolved

• Citation Issues: Books- Some of the listed citation issues were actually made by the Wikipiedia citation tool for Google books.
  • Ok- they can still be edited! I've added the particular chapter in one of the edited collections as an example. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Citation Issues: Locations and Publishers: Some of those citations were made using the Wikipiedia citation tool for google books.
  • As above. This is not a particularly big deal for GAC purposes. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• McFarland/McFarland and Company- Not sure I understand what you're asking.
  • I'm asking for consistency; it's the same company, and so should generally be referred to by one name or the other. Again, though, this isn't a particularly big deal. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Article Lead- Lead sections aren't really my specialty so I can't really fix that.
  • Leads can be tricky, I admit. A good lead will give the reader everything they need to know about the topic in a few second. A rule of thumb which I know some people use is trying to include something from every section of the article, giving an impression of what each section says. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Amazon Citations- I will try to find another source if one exists.

• New York Times Reference- Not sure what the problem is with it, the link works fine on my computer.
  • What are you referencing, here? Could you copy-paste across the relevant text from the source page? I fear we're talking at cross-purposes. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Closing review

Ok, I'm happy that this is roughly where it needs to be for GA purposes after I've made a few more fixes. It isn't perfect, but it doesn't need to be for GA. A fun topic; I look forward to seeing the articles you produce in the future! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I plan on doing more in the future.--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)