Talk:Leatherface/GA1

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

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 16:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I've looked through this article with the intention of reviewing it, but it appears to require a quickfail per WP:QF. I'll elaborate below with more details, but there are immediate issues that should be resolved prior to a GA nomination. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 16:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Well-written
 * When subsections go on for longer than a few paragraphs, it begins to severely affect readability. The "portrayers", "design", and "personality" sections exceed the ideal length of a subsection several times over. This is a symptom of the excessive detail present in the article, which is covered under criterion 3.
 * "developing a horror villain" does not belong as a heading. I see similar headings at Jason Voorhees were used to justify this, but it appears they're only in that article because they're being guarded against consensus.
 * This article uses the word "would" 162 times. In most if not all of these cases, it's used to avoid past tense. Would be should be, Would portray should be , etc

I have not closely looked at the sources, but there are multiple sources listed as generally unreliable at WP:RS/P: The New York Post, We Got This Covered, SportsSkeeda (used twice), and Discogs
 * Verifiable with no original research

This criterion is the reason that a quickfail is required. Criterion 3b reads: it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). At 14,498 words, this article is pushing against the recommended limit of the broadest, most widely covered topics. As described by WP:LENGTH, articles of this length begin to cause not only readability issues, but also make maintenance unrealistic and can cause technical issues for readers on older devices. Realistically, this article probably needs to be reduced in size by at least one third.
 * Broad in its coverage

Condensing the paragraphs in these longer sections could help. I'd take some of them and condense them down to 2–3 sentences that just have the paragraph's main idea without including trivia, minor details, or blow by blow accounts of events. I'll commend the article for generally sticking to an out of universe perspective, so there's not really outright WP:FANCRUFT to be removed, but where it does appear it should be cut. I also notice that some of these longer sections are as long as they are because they cover each film in detail. An article about a fictional character should cover the general use of the character rather than specifics of every appearance. If you don't want to delete this material, you could probably move it to the respective film articles and then leave a general 1–2 paragraph summary of the overall info on this article.


 * Neutral


 * Stable


 * Illustrated