Talk:Max Havoc: Curse of the Dragon

Production section

Seems to me the article by Mike Leeder at ImpactOnline is not a reliable source seeing as Leeder is a producer (therefore essentially an employee) for Albert Pyun [1]. While ImpactOnline may or may not be a reliable source, an interview/article written by Leeder re: Pyun most certainly has bias and point-of-view problems. Sprinkler21 (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Sprinkler21

Answered on your talk page. Daß Wölf (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll write down here things I'd like to change so that we don't waste time reverting and re-editing each other:

• The Settlement section should not be a level-1 section. It should be a part of Controversy or just merged into Controversy altogether. We could also merge Settlement, then re-arrange the sentences so that Controversy gets a Lawsuits subsection.
• The Release section should arguably be before the Controversy section, as it chronologically and causally precedes it. No loans were defaulted on before the film had a chance to flop in the box office. There is also a weak case to be made for the Reception section to be moved between Release and Controversy, as is customarily done.
• We could use the source you linked ([2]) for the film gross, although it would be nice to find a better source, since we'd have to write "according to GEDCA".
• The Sequel section is probably too short to survive by itself, but I can't think of a good section to merge it into. Daß Wölf (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm gonna be buried with life for awhile and won't be able to work on stuff around here for several days. I'm ok with every suggestion above except the last: I'm really curious as to why there would be a sequels section at all. It's mentioned the film had a sequel in the first paragraph and there's a link, why clutter what's turning out to be a great article with details about a sequel? I'll try to get back to some of the gnome work here when I can. I really do appreciate your help on this. It's looking great. Sprinkler21 (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Sprinkler21

I'm pretty busy too at the moment, so sorry for not doing much with the article. I've shortened the part about the sequel and merged it into the Release section. Per WP:LEAD, "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The sequel is certainly notable in the context of Curse of the Dragon, as it features the same leading actor playing the same role in much of the same way as the first movie, and they were released as a double feature multiple times (I've mentioned one, since it would probably be overkill to list every DVD and Blu-ray version ever sold). Therefore I think it deserves to be mentioned in the article. Daß Wölf (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I see your point. Changes look great. It's lookin' like a GA for sure. I'll continue working on it when I can. Sprinkler21 (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Sprinkler21

Thanks, and thanks again for all your hard work on the article :) Daß Wölf (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Max Havoc: Curse of the Dragon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 03:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review on Hold

1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
3. Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Writing style is actually pretty good. Only a few minor quibbles here: Please wikilink first instance of actor's name in Plot sect. I think the quotes in the Reception sect and the Settlement sect can be paraphrased instead of direct quotations. Please consult GA toolbox link Copyvio detector for helpful ideas about how to trim quotes.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Not sure this looks like best organizational layout, please consult WP:MOSFILM for some better ideas. In Production sect, you have mixed up Filming info as if it began before Casting info which appears later. Again, please see WP:MOSFILM for the order this should be presented. Good model at Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Per WP:LEAD, please expand lede sect a bit more to fully function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. I'd say maybe three paragraphs, with four sentences each.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Per WP:LEADCITE, no need for cites in lede intro sect please. Is this a USA film or European film? Please use Month Day, Year -- format for dates in cites, as I think this is predominantly a USA film, yes?
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Cite 22 and 23 need some work, please standardize with WP:CIT templates. You have some cites archived with Wayback Machine by Internet Archive, about half, but not all. IFF you're going to do that (and you should) for ease of standardization and uniformity, please do that for the rest of them, as well, by adding archiveurl and archivedate fields to cites.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article seems to rely predominantly on secondary sources, throughout.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I feel like the article could go into more detail on the Production sect. If that's truly a reflection of the full corpus of all the secondary source coverage that's out there, okay, but I'm left feeling like there could be a little bit more here.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Good focus for article, perhaps a little bit too much WP:UNDUE WEIGHT on the Controversy sect, might want to try trimming that down a bit more.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	See above re Controversy sect. Please also retitle Controversy sect to Litigation. It is objective that Litigation occurred, but it is subjective that it was a Controversy.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article looks like it has been stable for over one month ... but I'm seeing some prior reverting going on at 6 September 2015 and at 16 September 2015 between Sprinkler21 and Daß Wölf, would appreciate just a brief summary or comment upon what that was about please?
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Max Havoc CotD poster.jpg - please see File:Loham film poster.jpg for an idea on how to write a better fair-use-rationale on the image page.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues here.
	7. Overall assessment.	GA on Hold for Seven Day period of time, after which we'll have to come back and reevaluate status. — Cirt (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: Thanks for your review, and I appreciate your thorough efforts to validate the quality as well! :) I've (hopefully) followed your advice on most points. Here are my comments:

• 1b. I hope this layout is OK. Please let me know if the lead needs copyediting; I don't have much time for Wikipedia these days, and I'm kind of in a hurry since you're reviewing Species at the same time ;)
• 3a. Unfortunately, the information about the production is very scarce. I suppose I could milk some more content out of Pyun's interview, but then there wouldn't be anything new left in it for the more industrious readers. I don't want to turn this into a copyvio.
• 3b. I streamlined Litigation a bit. Is this enough?
• 5. Re: 6 September, it was about calling Vincent Klyn a veteran of Pyun's films. He does appear in a lot of them, and Sprinkler21 left the mention in the article. On 16 September, Sprinkler21 wanted to leave out the material about Max Havoc: Ring of Fire, the sequel. We agreed that it was notable enough to warrant a mention, so I added back some of the material into the Release section. You can see all our conversation at User talk:Sprinkler21#Re: Max Havoc and the rest at Talk:Max Havoc: Curse of the Dragon#Production section.
• 6a. Done, modeled after Loham image.

Daß Wölf (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Reevaluation by GA Reviewer

1. Layout looks much, much better. Great job !!!
2. Explanation read and acceptable for Stability issues, no worries. :)
3. Okay I'll WP:AGF and trust your above statement that during the course of your research you haven't found much more Production info in secondary sources.
4. Litigation sect looks quite good.
5. Copyvio Detector results = "Violation Unlikely 17.4% confidence" = EXCELLENT, THIS IS WHAT WE LIKE TO SEE, THANK YOU !!!
6. Checklinks tool = http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Max_Havoc:_Curse_of_the_Dragon = shows at least one problem link remaining to be archived, please = Filmmaker owes GEDA final $75,000 (info) [guampdn.com]
7. Image fair use rationale looks much better.
8. Have you at least read through the instructions linked above, in my suggestion from point 3, at top of review, as a suggested idea, which is just for you to consider, and optional only?

— Cirt (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed the link, that one slipped through the cracks as I was adding archiveurl/date. I've read your suggestion and will consider it once I find more time, as I have a lot to do IRL this month. I hope I won't be too lenient at it; you're setting some high standards here ;) Daß Wölf (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Congrats on getting a GA for the article, Daß Wölf! I'm buried also in RL at the moment but do have a comment/issue or two. It seems you've changed a passage in the production (?) section to read that Pyun had to "resort" to a crew from Los Angeles. It's fine that Pyun claims this but it seems we might want to include what some of those Los Angeles crew members thought about Pyun and his direction. There are numerous sources that list problems Los Angeles crews had with Pyun. Also, I don't understand scaling back the controversy section (now the litigation section) when the film is mostly known for its controversy. More later. Congrats again. Sprinkler21 (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Sprinkler 21

Passed as GA

Passed as GA. Thanks very much to GA Nominator for being so polite and responsive to GA Reviewer recommendations, above. — Cirt (talk) 03:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Archived old threads

GA Reviewer here -- I've archived some old threads on this talk page so as to help better assess stability and look at only current ongoing issues at present.

Metric used was archived threads older and with zero activity or new responses for over one (1) year.

They may now be seen in the link at the talk header at the top of this page.

— Cirt (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Off-talk page discussion

Here is a discussion tangential to the article. Daß Wölf (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)