Talk:The Projected Man/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jburlinson (talk · contribs) 00:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to review this article--it sounds like a fun film! I'm sorry you've had to wait so long for a response to your nomination. Comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for all your work! Jburlinson (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few minor changes to wording & spelling. If you object to any of these, please let me know and revert as you see fit.

Some initial reactions:
Plot:

Other synopses I've seen indicate that the initial problem with Steiner's experiments is that the subjects' aging processes were speeded up and they died as result. The problem with the electrical charges comes later in the film. This jibes with my own very dim memory of this film. Would you mind verifying?

I will probably re-watch the film and expand this section later. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Production:

It might be good to provide a brief identification for Alex Gordon and Richard Gordon. The casual reader may not recognize these names.

Done. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haliday was cast as "the producers were not fond of casting a British actor", and yet Mary Peach and the others were British. Seems a little inconsistent. Any further information available on this?

Done (he was opposed to the idea of a British actor playing the title role) Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "the producers" is used a couple of times. Does this mean Richard and/or Alex Gordon and/or Croydon, or are there others?

Nuked the uses. It's now more specific. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Klinger and Tony Tenser -- who are they, and what is their connection to the film?

Executive producers - added. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"As The Projected Man's special effects were not yet finished, he showed him" -- a little pronoun confusion. I figure Gordon showed Martin, is that correct?

Correct - fixed. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...which Martin enjoyed and expressed interest in obtaining the American rights,[6] which he did for a "very large sum of money." -- This seems a little awkward. Is there a way to re-phrase?

Done - I shortened it as him expressing interest isn't really necessary. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"no good for us financially," -- who is "us"? It's not clear what the relationship between Gordon (and others?) and Universal is, so it's a little hard to make out whose financial interests are being referred to.

Re-read the chapter in the book - he's talking about the film's production company. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"it was cut thirteen minutes shorter" -- shorter than what? The British release?

Yes - done. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"to provide a natural running time" -- I'm not sure what a natural running time is. Does it mean that the two films together came in at less than 3 hours?

Exactly three hours. Fixed. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the image: File:Bryant Haliday - Devil Doll.png There should probably be a caption identifying what the image is, perhaps making clear that it's not from the film that is the subject of the article.

Done. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Release: Reception:

"Richard Gordon responded to the allegations, saying that "we weren't really influenced by The Fly" and "Projected Man does have a very strong similarity to The Fly..." -- this seems contradictory, although it wouldn't be the first time that a film producer contradicted himself. :) Would it be better to say something like: "While denying that he was directly influenced by "The Fly", Richard Gordon acknowledged that there were similarities..."

Tweaked. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of the release of the film in the UK, where it was made. I think this might be a major aspect that ought to be addressed.

I didn't find anything on my first search, but maybe I didn't look hard enough. Will go source hunting soon. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Science Theater 3000:

There may be a little bit too much detail about MST which doesn't really relate to "The Projected Man", but I notice that some other articles, like "Gunslinger" share this same language, so there's a precedent in another GA article. Do you think it would be useful to link to List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes#Season_9. Just a thought.

I was the one who wrote Gunslinger. In both case, I reworked the MST3K section from The Brute Man, Night of the Blood Beast, Laserblast, and The Incredible Melting Man, which are all MSTed films and all GAs. I also already link the MST3K episode list - it's just in redirect form (Mystery Science Theater 3000 (season 9)). Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General:

Should include a section on home media -- this is pretty standard for GA film articles.

Added. It doesn't appear that this film has seen the light of day on DVD very much. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on this article. I appreciate your taking the time & effort to put it together. Also, thanks for considering my comments. Jburlinson (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, give me a few days and the rest of the issues will hopefully be patched up. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Jburlinson: OK, I've expanded the plot summary. I was unable to find any information on the United Kingdom release, but I don't think that should be too huge of a problem. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the plot summary -- it (almost) makes me want to watch the movie again. :) I found something on the UK release so I went ahead and added it to the section on "release". Also, I re-arranged a couple of sections slightly. The information on the double bill release seemed to be more appropriate under "release" than "production". If you disagree, please feel free to revert. I'll finish up the review post haste. Thanks for all your work on this interesting film. Jburlinson (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

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.	Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	Image tags ok
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA