Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boogeyman 2/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2017 [1].

Boogeyman 2

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the horror film Boogeyman 2. A sequel to the 2005 film, Boogeyman 2 takes place in a mental health facilty and focuses on a woman named Laura Porter who wintessed her parents' murder as a child and believes their killer to have been the Boogeyman. She currently is in the asylum to get over her phobia of the creature. This being a horror movie however, things quickly turn to shit, with her fellow patients being murdered one by one and their fears being used against them. I started working on the article in March and after about a month of editing, was able to get it to GA-status a few weeks ago in April. I also had it copy-edited very recently. I'm nominating for FA because I genuinely believe that, considering this is a relatively obscure direct-to-video horror sequel, the article is as informative as it can be. PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• Please add ALT text for the image in the infobox and the image in the body of the article.

• Done, though I kind of suck at alternative descriptions. I'm pretty sure I messed up the description for the second image.

• In the sentence (Casting began in December of the same year with the casting of O'Connor, and Savre was cast as the star in January 2007.), I would avoid the repetition of "casting" and "cast" in the same sentence.

• I think I might be having a brain freeze but I really can't think of any other way to write this.

• Found good alternative. :D

• Could you clarify the meaning of a "more grounded" version of the character? I am thinking that means a more realistic interpretation of the character, but some context or further information would be greatly appreciated.

• Rewrote to "grounded and realistic".

• Please link the Boogeyman in its first reference in the body of the article (i.e. the first sentence of the "Plot" section).

• Done.

• Please use the characters' full name when you first introduce them in the "Plot" section (where the characters have full names of course).

• Done.

• I would combine some of the paragraphs in the "Plot" section together as I am not sure the separation into smaller paragraphs is necessary beneficial to the reader, specifically the one sentence paragraph at the end.

• Done. Though from what I've seen, mid or end-credits scenes are always placed alone.

• I am a little confused by what you mean by "bogyphobia". A little more context would be greatly appreciated.

• Added that bogyphobia is a fear/phobia of the Boogeyman. I did google it and it appears to be a legitimate phobia.

• I am not sure that the separate subsections in the "Production" section are entirely necessary as they are pretty short. It may be better to remove them to avoid make the material appear choppy to the reader. Same comment applies to the "Release" section.

• Followed the "Production" style (which usually goes: Development, Casting, Filming, Effect etc.) presented in other articles. Same goes for "Release", removing the sub-sections and placing them all together would muddle things and information up.

• Makes sense to me; I will leave this up to more experienced reviewers to look at further. I actually think the subsections negatively affect the article more than help it as having one-sentence subsections (i.e. the "Box office" subsection" and short one-paragraph subsections (i.e. the "Effects" subsection) makes the information come across as choppy and a little underdeveloped. Removing the subsections and interweaving the information into a more cohesive narrative would be beneficial in my opinion to the article. I just wanted to clarify this point; I will keep my support vote up, but I would like a more experienced reviewer to provide some input on this matter if possible.
  Aoba47 (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Sadly not as this was the director's comment and he doesn't elaborate further.

• Thank you for clarifying this.
  Aoba47 (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I didn't find anything about Italy but in Russia it apparently made 362,724 dollars. However, the Box Office Mojo link to the movie's international gross does list Russia there. Additionaly, the amount of gross for Russia provided at Box Office Mojo is different than the one shown at KinoPoisk.

• Thank you for clarifying this.
  Aoba47 (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The "Reception" section needs to be revised to make it have a cohesive narrative tied together by clear topics (i.e. common areas that the critics pointed out or putting all of the negative reviews in one paragraph and the positive reviews in another). I would also use topic sentences to make this clear. I would highly encourage you to use this resource as a guide for revising this section.

• The reviewes were placed in negative-positive order. However, in both paragraphs I placed the reasons for the reviewers liking/disliking the film and which elements were generally praised or criticized.

• I would highly encourage you to archive all of your links to avoid having your work being lost due to link decay or link rot.

• Trust me, I've learned to do that with every article.

• Amazon.com and Rotten Tomatoes should not be in italics in the references. Same goes for Google Play and MovieWeb and Dread Central.

• Done.

These are the primary things that I noticed while reading through the article. You have done wonderful work with this. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this.

OK, I've attempted to fix all of your comments. I'm not sure if the changes I've made are satisfactory, if not just let me know. PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing my comments. Great job with this article. I will support it. I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide some comments for my current FAC? Good luck with this nomination!
  Aoba47 (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Thank you for the support Aoba :). I'll look into Eve, hopefuly by the end of the weekend. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you!
  Aoba47 (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Interesting choice for a featured article candidate. I've always said that every article has the potential to become FA or GA, and I did like the first film (hopefully that one gets worked on to GA status)... That being said, regrettably, I don't think this article can go beyond GA status considering there's not a lot of sources that make this stand out as FA material (From what I've seen, Featured Articles usually have a bare minimum of 50 references, although I have seen some with a slightly smaller number). Even though it's a great article, I think GA status is probably the best and highest grade this article can be given since, to me, doesn't feel like FA status material. Sorry man, although this is a good starting point, I wish you best of luck with all your other article projects.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

Aoba47 (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand what you mean Jack, I too at first thought that if an article doesn't have enough sources, then it would be hard or impossible for it to become a featured article. However, as Aoba pointed out, featured articles are not about how many sources an article has. As I said on the film's talk page, featured articles need to meet four criteria in order to be considered for FA-status; having a bare minumun number of sources is not required and I do believe that Boogeyman 2 meets the four criteria necessary. This is my own opinion - outside of the criteria - but I believe that if an article, regardless of its overall length, provides enough information on the subject that it's talking about, in all important areas, then it has the potential to become a FA. This being a film we're talking about, the article does provide info on development, release and reception. Granted, the information provided is not as much as, for example Alien vs. Predator, but those are two very different movies. PanagiotisZois (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bluesphere

• Use the Plainlist template where it is required in the infobox (i.e, producer, starring), and the gross should be condensed, rounded value ($4.3 million vs $4,282,637). Also, I don't think the runtime you provide is correct. The
  BBFC, which is the most cited reference for a film's runtime here, says it's 89 minutes. [2]

• Regarding the publisher, I believe I've added all of them, at least where possible. Regarding the date format, I might be confused a little but what you're saying is that while the text itself uses the MDY format, the references use DMY?

• I took care of the date formats for you. What I meant about the publisher concern was that you separate the original work of the reference (putting it in the |work parameter), and the owner/entity of the source in the |publisher in the inline citation. For instance, ref 2 cites Bloody Disgusting which, according to its own article, says it's owned by The Collective. So Bloody Disgusting should be in the |work param while The Collective is in the |publisher. All the other ref must observe this accordingly.

• As for the prose, everything is flawless. It's like I was enticed to watch the movie just by reading its introductory section. And I must say the same with the plot section.
  sphere 15:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Thank you. Glad to see I'm not the only one that's tempted to watch movies whose articles are well written. XD PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I forgot, the identifier should go "edited and directed by
  sphere 17:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Fixed. PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just took care of the last concern, although I'm not sure if I was allowed to do so. The references appear to be delicate so I archived them. Btw, you've done a pretty decent job with this article, and for that I give you my Support. Best of luck with the other reviewers. While you wait for the other reviewers, perhaps you could take a look at my FL nomination here?

It was very kind of you to fix the references though you didn't have to. I would have done it by the end of the day. I believe large edits aren't encouraged with FAR but those were relatively minor edits and only to the references so I believe it's alright. Thank you for support and I will look into the list; hopefully by the end of the weekend. PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

• I reviewed this at GAN, and it's looking tighter now. No quibbles to speak of....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed them somewhere, we still need an image and source review. These can be requested at the top of

• Both images have suitable Fair Use rationales.
• References formatted consistently.
• Earwigs ok, raised score due to (attributed) quotes.
• FN 10 cited once, faithful to source.
• FN 13 cited twice, faithful to source.
• FN 29 cited once, faithful to source.
• FN 27 unavailable (needs archive?)

First of all, thank you for performing the image & source reviews. As for FN 27, I'm assuming it's the one for the film's digital release on Amazon Video. I checked it today and it seems fine. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]