Talk:The Screaming Skull/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 13:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this. I may be a little rusty at reviewing though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2014 (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.
	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.	Within definition
	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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Review comments

1

Per WP:LEAD, this article (just under 7k characters) should not have a 3 paragraph lead
I don't want to get into a detailed prose review until #3 is dealt with, so we'll just put this on pause. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews were negative, with one reviewer from DVD Verdict calling it "truly awful". - We jump fifty or so years in two sentence. Not quite fair to the film.
Reworked.
by Marion's self-portrait inside the house, who Jenni believes resembles her mother. - The pronoun "who" is referring to Marion's self-portrait, which does not make sense. The sentence should be refactored
Changed to "which". Better?
Jenni faints and Eric withdraws the skull and hides it, revealing that he was responsible for the trickery all along in an effort to get hold of her wealth. - you haven't mentioned that Jenni was rich yet
Added.
roles on Broadway productions and often played supporting roles - any way to avoid repeating roles?
Nicol also stars as Mickey, the gardener. - stars or appears?

I'd say stars - he's listed on the poster as a main role.

with a small budget - do we know how much?
No.
Reviews have been negative. - if we're not presenting any contemporary reviews, this isn't quite fair. We should mention that these are reviews by more recent writers.
I removed the sentence.
Three Came Back links to an episode of Hawaiian Eye?

Yeah, there isn't an article on it yet. I changed it to a redlink. (Scheuer calls it by an alternate title.)

TV Guide gave it two. - year?

Can't tell - the site doesn't say.

Is the MST3K riff track worth its whole section? It's a single paragraph. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nuked.

OK, I think I've got all these. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it will be a good idea to mention the film for which Floyd Crosby won the Academy Award?--MJ for U (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Aloof" gardener... the dialogue is fairly explicit that he is developmentally disabled, rather than simply aloof. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3

The lack of contemporary sources is a big, big, big shortcoming for this. Google News may have something. A little light on books too. This gives background to the theatrical gimmick (useful for modern readers). Probably a bit more here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should include dates for references which include them (DVD Verdict's review is dated... looks to be the only one). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any comparisons of the different DVD releases? Reading IMDB (not a reliable source, but good for getting an idea on where to go next) there are some considerable differences, particularly with Webber's bra-and-slip scene.
Speaking of that scene, are there any sources that discuss it in detail? That seems rather racy for a 1958 film, especially when Psycho's scene with Janet Leigh drew some considerable heat two years later.
Mention the coffin in the prologue? Supported by the AFI link and TCM link, and with a screenshot (on Commons already)
The references I've checked all support what they are cited for and are not closely paraphrased. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

6

If the film is public domain as the article says, there is no reason to not use a screenshot (title card, usually). NFCC #1 doesn't permit fair-use images when free ones exist. (The poster has a copyright notice, but I haven't looked any further than that yet)

Hi, thanks for taking this up. I've done some little editing, and added two reviews from book sources. I also have trimmed the lead a bit, and added the bit about Castle's insurance to the Production section. Sadly, the news sources don't seem very useful; most of them are just TV schedules with a one-sentence blurb. But I'll keep looking. Again, thanks. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

McGee also says that Nicol didn't actually buy the insurance, as opposed to the earlier film. Might be nice if we could tie the poster's line in as well. Free burial? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Free burial?" Yes, that's what the opening says. I added the bit about him not contacting insurance. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K, just waiting on the images before I continue (probably tomorrow, considering the local time). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like just need to clean up the images and do a source review (spotcheck and formatting check). I'll start on the latter, but you should do the former. Do you have a copy of the film? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've set my computer to download Archive.org's copy of the film (PD, right?), so I can a) help with images, b) upload the film to Commons, and c) verify the plot. This may take a while, owing to the connection speed in Indonesia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm uploading some fifty screenshots, and I've found out that copyright on the the poster was never renewed. I will be uploading the Wrong Side of the Art copy to Commons. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Further images available at Commons:Category:The Screaming Skull if you want. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks, Crisco. I added the coffin image to the article, described the prologue, and clarified Mickey is disabled. Couldn't find any sources about the DVD or Webber's underwear scene. Let me know if you have any further things to address with the article. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Nothing much from me, but MJ's question is a good one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Agree and done. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm passing this as a GA. Good work! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]