This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
@Ribbet32: I've looked over the article and here are some notes I have that I feel should be addressed in order for this to pass as a GA.
The lead needs expanded a bit, and there is some unusual phrasing/irrelevant material present, such as "with effects depicting the death of a person and an animal," which reads awkwardly and is something of a minute detail. Perhaps more concrete examples of critical opinion could be used here, and release history/box office information.
The plot, themes, and Production sections are overall very nicely written, and I don't have much input here in regards to improvement. One suggestion would be moving the "Themes" section below the production/release, however, as it does break the flow. Examples of Theme/critical analysis sections working well usually have it after the "Critical reception" sections, which seems most sensible to me given that scholarly writing on films (which produces such commentary on themes) come far later.
Sources and bibliography all check out here. I would double-check on ensuring there are no dead links and possibly archiving ones that could be precarious, though from a glance, these all appear to be stable sources. Seems to hold up well.
That's really all I have here—the article is overall informative and well-put-together. As I noted above, the lead section needs a bit of expansion and rephrasing, and maybe a slight restructuring of the article in terms of the section order, but I think this is very well on its way to being a GA.
@Drown Soda: Thank you for your feedback. I've rethought the lede. As for the the section order, note that this follows MOS:FILM- Lead, plot, cast, themes, production, release, reception. Ribbet32 (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@Ribbet32: You're right in regard to the MOS—I'm not 100% up on that. The lead reads much better in my opinion now—a bit more full and covers the article. Everything here checks out as GA from my reading. --Drown Soda (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)