Talk:Boogeyman 2/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I will take a look and jot questions below (I should add that I haven't seen the film): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Soon, the therapy group begins to get murdered, one by one. - err, it's the members getting murdered not the group, try something like, "Soon, the members of group are being murdered, one by one."


 * Originally announced in October 2006, due to the previous film's financial success, production of the film began in the same month with the hiring of Betancourt as director and Sieve attached as writer - this makes it sounds like the production of the film and not the film itself was announced in October 2006. Needs a rewording. Say something like, " On the back of the previous film's financial success, Boogeyman 2 was announced in October 2006, with production of the film beginning in the same month with the hiring of Betancourt as director and Sieve attached as writer" ...?


 * It received mostly mixed reviews from critics... - "mostly" redundant here.


 * which reviewers believed provided a good contrast both in regards to its predecessor and other Boogeyman-related films --> "which reviewers believed contrasted favourably to its predecessor and other Boogeyman-related films"


 * maybe say "mediocre" instead of "underwhelming"


 * Henry, who was in the same therapy group, seems to be doing fine and is seemingly cured. Henry goes off to a job interview. - can trim this to something like, "Henry, who was in the same therapy group, seems to be doing well and is off looking for work."


 * Mark falls down the elevator shaft - surely "an" elevator shaft? Unless it's a very specific one?


 * The lights go out at the hospital and all that's left is Laura, Alison, Darren, Nicky, Dr. Ryan and Gloria, the receptionist'' - a bit colloquial...how about, "The lights go out at the hospital, leaving Laura, Alison, Darren, Nicky, Dr. Ryan and Gloria, the receptionist in the dark"?


 * How is Alison killed when she is with the others?
 * If I remember correctly, after the lights are turned back on everyone goes to their rooms. While alone, that's when the Boogeyman attacks Alison.
 * Be good to add something like that as reading it now leaves the reader wondering how she is suddenly alone and killed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 *  Laura begins a cat and mouse game with the Boogeyman, who chases her through the underground storage area - why not just, " The Boogeyman chases Laura through the underground storage area"


 * Dr. Allen abused Henry, locking him in a closet. - when? This makes it sounds like it has just happened...
 * I changed the last 2 paragraphs a bit to make it clear what Dr. Allen did to Henry and why.


 * I'd add a line or two in reception on how it spawned a sequel.
 * You mean Boogeyman 3? Would it be better to create a new section labelled "Sequel" and add some info there?
 * yeah you could do that too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I added some info on the sequel. Unfortunately information on it is even more scarce than the second movie so I wasn't able to find when it was first announced or something like that. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * this would be worth adding about Ghost House Pictures (i.e. subspecialising in horror films - set up by Sam Raimi, praise be his name! The reason I suggest adding this is it helps give some context. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did look into it. Not sure what I should include in the article. The fact that Ghost House produced the film and Sam Raimi had previously worked with Renee on Xena? PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the fact that it is a boutique horror entity set up by Raimi. Possibly the second bit as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I also made these edits to try and massage the prose a bit. Can you check if they are ok? Over to you....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I believe I've adressed all of your comments. I also included the novel reference in the production section. (Still can't believe you found it, I wasn't able to find anything in Google Books) If you have any more concerns please let me now. By the way, I did look at you changes and thank you, they are more than OK. :) PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: - ok, we're there Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)