Talk:Terror Train/GA1

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

Nominator: MagicatthemovieS (talk · contribs) 07:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 11:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Why isn't Grodnik named as a producer in the infobox? Why do only some characters in para 2 of "Plot" have something clarifying who they are? Is Alana aboard the train? If so, she's not listed in para 2 I think the list of cross-dressing killer films is a bit much- maybe only two or three notable examples are needed. Assume the reader hasn't seen many slasher films who would go on to make such films as Turner & Hooch (1989), Air America (1990), and Tomorrow Never Dies (1997). - generally, "who would go on to" statements aren't very useful- assume the reader hasn't heard of those three films at all. Cut ...Sandy Howard on the condition that he also edit the film[12] (though Anne Henderson was later brought in to edit).[1] - for consistency I prefer to keep references at the ends of sentences, since it still supports the sentences' claim and looks cleaner She would later gain fame for the hit song "Nasty Girl" (1982), written by Prince, as well as her role in the martial arts film The Last Dragon (1985) - ditto my earlier comment about "would go on to" The Curtis quote about the kiss could certainly be trimmed Grove wrote that the slasher film market was oversaturated in 1980 and 1981, with the release of Terror Train, Friday the 13th, Prom Night, New Year's Evil (1980), Maniac (1980), Mother's Day (1980), He Knows You're Alone (1980), Funeral Home (1980), Graduation Day (1981), Hell Night (1981), My Bloody Valentine (1981), Night School (1981), Student Bodies (1981), and The Burning (1981). - IMO, the list isn't important I'll do a prose review of the critical response section once it has been revised, per my comment on 2d Paul Lê of Bloody Disgusting wrote "Terror Train avoided the remake treatment during the 2000s, a time when retro slashers were being modernized one after the other. - could easily be paraphrased Note that for many of the above comments, I wrote "could be paraphrased", not "should be" - if you believe the phrasing a specific quote is important to understanding its meaning, I'm happy to discuss Prose is well-written
	1b. it complies with the list incorporation .	Per WikiProject film guidelines, the theme section goes after production (just below MOS:FILMPRODUCTION ). When you reorganize, make sure the first mentions of full names stay early- putting production before will require "Ebert" to be extended and linked Similarly, Home media should go right after release and before critical reception Complies with MoS standards for plots, leads, and layout
2. source spot-check :
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline .	I realize this will be a HUGE pain, as I've been there before... but all the citations to Grove 2015 need page numbers. You can likely find a version with page numbers at Anna's Archive Otherwise, Refs are in a proper 'References' section with a works cited below
	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).	I question the reliability of these sources: iHorror.com Horror Fuel FirstShowing.net Facebook (this should almost certainly be replaced; see WP:RSPFB ) ComingSoon.net Sources, mostly online articles or book excerpts, are reliable
	2c. it contains no original research.	I trust that there's no OR based on the various sources I randomly checked- all good here
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The Reception section is almost all large quotes, which isn't innately bad because they are referenced correctly, but they could most certainly be cut down and summarized better- Earwig shows very high scores due to these quotes. See WP:RECEPTION for some guidance. The same can be said of Themes- cut down on quotes, paraphrase more
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Did the film win any awards? addresses everything a film article should
	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 audio :
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images correctly CC or fair use tagged
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions .	IMO the Roger Ebert image is unnecessary. Otherwise, make sure to remove periods from captions that aren't complete sentences: see MOS:CAPFRAG Captions relevant and captioned properly
	7. Overall assessment.

• MagicatthemovieS, there's some work to be done, but it'll all result in an even better article than it is now! Let me know if you have any questions- I'll finish the review once the above points are addressed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: I would prefer to keep the long list of cross-dressing films to emphasize how common the trope is and the long list of 1980-1981 slasher films to emphasize how statured the market was if that's alright with you.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

Fair enough then MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I credit Grodnik and Greenberg, but only the latter is listed as a producer in the film's credits. I don't know how/if our article should reflect that.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

Nevermind, you are correct- the infobox parameters say otherwise. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got rid of a lot (but not all) of the quotations in the Reception and Themes sections. Let me know if that's sufficient or if I need to get rid of more quotes. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is FilmAffinity a good source? MagicatthemovieS (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of another place where I can find Grove 2015 with page numbers because Anna's Archive doesn't seem to work for me? MagicatthemovieS (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For quotes: better, but the second para of "retrospective" is a giant blockquote, and the main ideas could be wrapped in the previous para

FilmAffinity: based on what I can find on their website, it seems much more like a review site and not a news source. Because the movie listings lack authors and dates, I wouldn't be too confident

Grove: well, Anna's isn't working for me either... forget the comment, I'll strike it through. Google Books' distinct lack of page numbers is rather frustrating and if there's no easy alternative then so be it. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced iHorror with Grove 2015 because the iHorror source was just an excerpt from Grove. I also removed the large quote from the Reception section. All that's left is awards, I believe. IMDB mentions these awards; do you think they are worth mentioning in the article https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081617/awards/ MagicatthemovieS (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

Wikipedia's guideline is to include all awards that have a Wikipedia article. With that in mind, the Saturn Awards and Genie Awards should be listed- because there's so few, a table likel'y isn't needed, and you could easily make a small para about it. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

Two questions: Can we put this film under the category of "Transphobia?" Our sources only say it could be interpreted as transphobic, not that it is. Secondly, I put it under the category "Tubi original programming." Should I add other categories that only apply to the remake and its sequel, like "Horror film remakes" and "Canadian sequel films?"MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

Putting it under the transphobia category would require widespread belief among many writers, and it only seems like a couple support that idea. I'd exclude it. I'm not sure about the other categories- if there's a redirect it may only apply there, but idk if redirects go into categories. May have to consult someone else for this one. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to say this thi is complete- excellent work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]