Talk:Ghostbusters/GA1

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

Reviewer: Slightlymad (talk · contribs) 03:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Grabbing this nomination for a review; thanks for your patience. To begin with, I noticed several instances of the word "movie" throughout; the word "film" is preferred over the former, so please change them. Also, The American Film Institute has a long write up (under History tab) with more info on the film that you can use to expand the Wiki. I'll come back soon for additional comments.  Slightlymad  (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Changed from "movie" to "film". Also added the AFI Catalog to expand the article a bit.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Plot

 * "Dana is possessed by Zuul The Gatekeeper, while Louis Tully is possessed by her counterpart" → There's already an instance of "Louis Tully" in the previous sentence

Development

 * "The movie's concept was inspired by Dan Aykroyd's fascination with the paranormal." → Just use the AFI Catalog source to support this claim, as the Hollywood Reporter source states it was Aykroyd's father and grandfather's fascination, not his.


 * "The original story, as written by Aykroyd, was very different from what was eventually filmed. In the original version, a group of "Ghostsmashers" traveled through time, space, and other dimensions combating huge ghosts (of which the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man was one of many)." → unsourced?
 * ✅ Removed.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Revise last sentence of first paragraph to, "Aykroyd cited the Disney short Lonesome Ghosts (1937) and The Bowery Boys slapstick comedy Spook Busters (1946) as inspirations for Ghostbusters' title and premise of professional "exterminators" on a paranormal mission; Lonesome Ghosts includes the line "I ain't scared of no ghost". What makes ref. 7 a reliable, high-quality source?
 * ✅ Removed. Never mind, I found an interview in which Aykroyd mentions the movies that inspired him for the script.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "In May 1983, Reitman went to the office of the Columbia Pictures' president Frank Price and pitched him the project." → Drop 'the' from "the Columbia", and wikilink "pitch"


 * "Price liked it and approved a $30 million budget in advance. The only condition was that the movie was ready for release by June 1984." → Revise to, "Price green-lit the project for $30 million, with the stipulation that the film had to be released by June 1984."

Pre-production

 * To provide storyboards and concept art, associate producer Michael C. Gross hired illustrators including Thom Enriquez, Bernie Wrightson, and Tanino Liberatore. → Follow "including" with a colon


 * "John DeCuir, known for his elaborate sets, was hired as production designer and art director, which Reitman considered a coup," → Did Reitman consider John Decuir a coup or his production design? I'm confused...
 * ✅ Shortened it to avoid confusion.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "The packs were designed by Design consultant Stephen Dane," → Is there a reason the 'D' in design should be capitalized?
 * ✅ Spelling error.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "Each pack weighed about thirty pounds (14 kg), and nearly fifty (22.6 kg) with the batteries installed" → Changed thirty and fifty to their numeric forms

Casting

 * "Aykroyd and Ramis initially wrote roles for Belushi as Aykroyd's sidekick and John Candy as Louis Tully." → "Aykroyd and Ramis initially wrote the role of Louis Tully specifically for John Candy, and of Aykroyd's sidekick for Belushi."


 * "However the role ultimately went to Yugoslav model Slavitza Jovan." → Follow however with a comma


 * An obituary from the Feb-Mar 2000 issue of the Science Fiction Chronicle claims...." → the word "claim" is a word to watch as it implies doubt. Change it to "says" or "states" per WP:SAID


 * Please do something about that one-sentence paragraph as we try to avoid such
 * ✅ Merged into the previous paragraph.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A claim that was tagged by another editor is still unsourced, since it's not supported by the AFI source.  Slightlymad  (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Filming

 * The last two sentences of the first paragraph are not supported by the New York magazine source.
 * ✅ Changed them.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * During filming of the scenes set at Dana Barrett and Louis Tully's apartment building at 55 Central Park West ," → Location is already mentioned in the first paragraph


 * "One exterior scene shot in Manhattan enhanced with supplemental work in Los Angeles was the earthquake scene in front of Dana Barrett and Louis Tully's building in the story's climax." → Revise to, "The climactic earthquake scene in front of Dana Barrett and Louis Tully's apartment building was shot in Manhattan, enhanced with supplemental work in Los Angeles."


 * "After a test with 75 pounds of shaving cream knocked a stunt man flat, only 35 pounds were used for the final shot." → Use Template:Convert as you did in the Pre-production subsection


 * "His sequences were filmed at a rate of eight frames per second," → wikilink rate to Frame rate


 * "Reitman claims there are 650 special effects shots in the entire film." → Again, avoid the word "claim" per WP:SAID as it implies doubt. Change it to "said"


 * "To determine if the comedy works, preview audiences were screened the film in March 1984 without its completed special effects." → "In March 1984, test audiences were screened the film with its unfinished effects shots to determine if the comedy works."


 * "A viral campaign was intitiated by the studio featuring the "No ghosts" logo, creating popularity even though the people were yet unaware of either the film's title or its stars." → "which created popularity"; "initiated" is also misspelled.  Slightlymad  (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Box office

 * "After seven weeks, it was finally knocked to the number-two position by Prince's film Purple Rain," → "finally knocked" doesn't sound neutral to me. How 'bout "dropped"?


 * "By year end it had grossed $221 million making it the highest-grossing film of the year and the highest grossing comedy of its time." → million should be followed by a comma; hyphen at "highest grossing"


 * Fix the boxofficemojo.com to Box Office Mojo in inline cite 1


 * "It went on to gross $229.2 million but was surpassed by Beverly Hills Cop as the highest-grossing film released in 1984 and as the highest grossing comedy." → again, add hyphen to "highest grossing"


 * " Box Office Mojo estimates that the film sold over 68 million tickets in the US in its initial theatrical run → Box Office Mojo doesn't use estimates, nor do they need to be attributed in this context as the website is a reliable source for box office figures

Critical response

 * "Ghostbusters received positive reviews from both critics and audiences and is considered by many as one of the best films of 1984." → "to be one of the best"; the sources supporting these claim are also not reliable nor high-quality, so please change
 * Why are they not reliable? Filmsite seems alright. Film.com, Listal and Films101 also seem like normal review websites. I do not see anything problematic with them, as long as they are used for the category they represent.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fil101.com and Listal are not vetted as reliable at WP:FILM/R, thus they fail WP:GACR's criterion 2b.
 * ✅ Removed Film101 and Listal.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The use of direct quotations in this section is a bit heavy. See WP:QUOTE and WP:RECEPTION. Try reducing the amount of quotes and grouping generally positive reviews together along with generally negative reviews. Look for general themes between positive critiques, as well as negative. Try to build a narrative out of the commentary/reception on the film. What have critics in general picked up on? What are the main tenets? A bunch of quotes doth not great prose make. Some examples on how to make this section read better are Scrooged and The Thing.  Slightlymad  (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've changed the wording to address your issue. I hope it's better now. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was hoping you would rewrite this into something akin to those in the examples I gave you; it's still the same, except paraphrased. See it's not just excessive quotation that's my biggest concern here, it's also the fact that it doesn't touch base on reviewers' critique of the movie in terms of acting, humor, special effects, direction, script etc. Whether critics liked them or not, you should give these critiques their due weight to make this section neutral; surely, critics have something to complain about this movie even though they gave it a positive review.


 * Please read WP:RECEPTION for a guide on how to write this section well. As it stands, it still fails the "well written" and "neutral" criteria at WP:GACR.  Slightlymad  (talk &sdot; contribs) 10:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten it again. I hope this is better now.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Accolades

 * "The film received two Academy Award nominations, including Best Original Song (for the hit song "Ghostbusters") and Best Visual Effects (John Bruno, Richard Edlund, Chuck Gaspar and Mark Vargo)." → "The film was nominated at the 57th Academy Awards for Best Original Song..."
 * Wikilink Golden Globes

Home media

 * First three sentences are unsourced
 * ✅ Removed unsourced sentences.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "Reitman was unhappy with the LaserDisc release of the film. He stated because "it pumped up the light level so much you saw all the matte lines. I was embarrassed about it all these years." → "Reitman was unhappy with the LaserDisc release of the film, explaining that "it pumped up the light level so much you saw all the matte lines. I was embarrassed about it all these years."


 * "It was released on VHS in 1990 as part of a VHS box set that included Ghostbusters II." → unsourced; italicize Ghostbusters II
 * ✅ Removed.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "It was released again on VHS in 1994, and in 1996 as part of the Columbia TriStar Family Collection." this is unsourced, too
 * ✅ Removed.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "at a time when an estimated four million U.S. households had DVD players, and became one of Reel.com's fastest selling products." → get rid of this waffle
 * ✅ Removed.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "Sony announced at Comic-Con 2008 that the Blu-ray version of the film would be released on October 21, 2008. Sony initially made it available through their promotional website Ghostbustersishiring.com. " → these are unsourced
 * ✅ Removed.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Soundtrack

 * In the first paragraph, only the last two sentences are sourced. What gives?


 * Need better sources for the second paragraph; the one cited is far from GA standards.
 * ✅ Added AFI Catalog for the law suit against the song.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * First two sentences of third paragraph are unsourced.  Slightlymad  (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Changed it.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I found a couple of lists in which the film is mentioned:, , ,. Maybe add them in Accolades. While you're at it, please don't use the hashtag (#) as a substitute to "number", per MOS:HASH. Pick either "number" or "No." and stick with it.  Slightlymad  (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Great suggestion. Done.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Please ensure that all inline citations to online sources have proper author, title, date of publication, and accessdates. For one, ref 90's publisher says only 'BD' instead of 'Bloody Disgusting' and the author is not credited, which is Brad Miska. Also, the date format in an article like this should all be mdy, not dmy; I notice that the majority of the date formats inline are dmy.  Slightlymad  (talk &sdot; contribs) 12:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ ref 39 still has no accessdate, and refs 64 and 89 are still using dmy format  Slightlymad  (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Corrected.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Corrected.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Alright, this review is a wrap. I believe this article meets the GA criteria, so I'm going to go ahead and promote it.  Slightlymad  (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)