Talk:Saw III/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cognissonance (talk · contribs) 22:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, and welcome, I wanna [review this article]. Cognissonance (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead

 * "who is tasked with keeping him alive" While reading, I thought Lynn was keeping Jeff ("him") alive, as his name is mentioned right before. Specify that "him" is Kramer.

Plot

 * Before we do anything with this section, you need to trim the plot down to under 700 words, per WP:FILMPLOT; it is currently at 1008. I'll start the review in full tomorrow. Cognissonance (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. --Kevin DewittAlways ping 23:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Link Eric Matthews from disambiguation page list to Eric Matthews (Saw)
 * "Dr. Lynn Denlon is abducted from her hospital" The last part doesn't identify why she's at the hospital. If she works there, replace with something like "the hospital where she works".
 * "and instructed by Amanda" The reader must know who she is. Suggestion: "and instructed by Amanda, his apprentice,"
 * "The other victim, Jeff, awakens" Specify that Jeff is Lynn's husband: "The other victim is Lynn's husband Jeff, who awakens"
 * "which will lead him to killed his son" Fix grammar: "which will lead him to who killed his son"
 * "his son. Jeff has become unstable and vengeful since his son Dylan was killed by a drunk driver, and now neglects his daughter Corbett" Improve flow: "his son, Dylan, who was killed by a drunk driver. Jeff became unstable and vengeful as a result, and now neglects his daughter"
 * The lines ", and flashbacks show her time with John, as well as her abduction of Adam, which left her guilt-ridden to the point where she killed him." and ", including Troy's and Kerry's." are unnecessary to understanding the plot. Remove those.
 * "She also fought with Eric Matthews after he escaped the bathroom by breaking his foot; she implies killing him, but John believes she left him to die" He breaks his foot twice? Once in the bathroom, and then again? If it's the other foot that she breaks, specify.
 * All done.--Kevin DewittAlways ping 05:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Production

 * The source only says that Hoffman died in December 2005, there was no mention of the release of Saw II. Establish that he was the producer of Saw II so that the rest makes sense. To improve the continuity, move that sentence to after the one where they turn down a third film. Drop "unexpectedly", as it reads like WP:POV.
 * "turned down the offer to make a third film" Clarify: "turned down the offer to make a third film in the franchise" (Link to Saw (franchise).)
 * "Wan and Whannell were among the executive producers of Saw II." is irrelevant to this article.
 * "and came to conclusion that Saw III was going to be made with or without them, so they decided to make the film in dedication to Hoffman" Tautology. Improve flow: "and decided to make Saw III in dedication to Hoffman"
 * The source specifies that the nature of the love story is one between a father and a daughter, ought to be mentioned
 * "What Darren and I struck for Saw III was to have an emotionally impactful ending. We wanted something that would almost make someone who was really invested in the story cry. We have Jigsaw, this character who's been so cold and clinical, he's been presented throughout the previous two films as someone who's very much in control. He's more like a reptile than a human being. In Saw III he becomes a human being. You see him crack. His veneer cracks and that was what was most important to us far and above any sort of gimmick or twist" Paraphrase the useful bits and discard the rest, long quotes clog articles
 * "Whannell also answered questions from previous films that were brought up by fans on the official Saw message board" Previous films are not relevant to this article
 * "I had nightmares the first month I was on set. We were shooting it for two months. People say because you're an actor it's not a big deal because you go in there and it's fake or whatever. But what they don't understand is that it's actually the opposite because, as an actor, when you go in there you have to believe it's real to make your performance real. You have to get lost in the mindframe of this character" Paraphrase the important bits, discard the rest
 * "Larose was in Bousman's first short film titled Butterfly Dreams and helped finance Bousman's second short, Identity Lost" Why is that relevant to Saw III?
 * "which parodied Saw and Saw II, since it closely resembled the old set" Not said in the interview, you could generalise and say it parodied the franchise, and the reason for using it wasn't stated either
 * The source (ref. 8) following that line is a duplicate of the next source, which covers everything that comes before, remove duplicate
 * All done.--Kevin DewittAlways ping 05:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Release

 * Ref. 22 does not cover the US or Canadian release, add source
 * "According to Bousman, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) ratings board was less concerned with the film's graphic violence because television shows like CSI have expanded the scope of what is acceptable viewing with their graphic depictions of crime scenes and autopsies. Bousman said the MPAA is more concerned with emotional torture that disturbs the audience" Improve flow: "Bousman said the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) ratings board was less concerned with the film's graphic violence than it was with emotional torture, citing television shows like CSI for expanding the scope of what is acceptable'''"
 * "resulting in ambulances called" Improve flow: "resulting in ambulances being called"
 * "He said, "We decided to do a poster and he's wearing a red cloak. I was talking to the printer and asked what we could do to get the deepest blood red. I asked if it would be possible to use actual blood. There was silence. He said, 'We could try, but are you serious?' I said I was dead serious" Quotes within quotes is overkill, paraphrase
 * Artists Addiction was not mentioned in the source.
 * All done.--Kevin DewittAlways ping 15:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources you added (box office mojo) don't have any parameters, just bare urls, and the one that covers the UK release is the same page as what covers New Zealand. Box Office Mojo does not mention the US in relation to the release date. You didn't paraphrase the quote. Cognissonance (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Reception

 * The San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, Arizona Republic reviews have too much coverage in quotes, paraphrase
 * Done.--Kevin DewittAlways ping 15:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not done. Paraphrasing is describing the information within them in prose, just removing quotes is not sufficient. Cognissonance (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Overall
I'll come back to this later, continuing from Production. Cognissonance (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Putting this on hold. Once the issues have been addressed, I'll look again. It will have to become a smaller article, perhaps its true form if no additional sources come up. Cognissonance (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * All done.--Kevin DewittAlways ping 15:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * More notes above. Cognissonance (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it ready now? --Kevin DewittAlways ping 13:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't paraphrase the quotes in marketing or critical response. An example of paraphrasing a quote is this:
 * Quote: "Saw III'' is devoid of any suspense or terror or common sense. It's simply an exercise in gore. And really, if that's all the filmmakers have up their sleeve, why bother with a plot? Just show one grisly makeup effect after another and you'd create the same sensory experience"


 * Paraphrasing of quote: Saw III lacked elements of suspense and terror, and was instead "an exercise in gore", which Cordova felt eliminated the need for a plot.
 * What you did was delete quotes entirely. Also, ref. 36 is still without parameters. Cognissonance (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Cognissonance, while I agree with your point about paraphrasing—if the information is worthwhile (and this seems to be) it should be included—your example does not accurately reflect what the reviewer is trying to say. Cordova isn't saying that the gore in the movie means there isn't the need of a plot, it's just that if all they're going to do is follow gore with more and more gore, a plot isn't needed to provide a gore-laden sensory experience. But what is really being conveyed here is that Saw III badly needed a plot with suspense and terror and some common sense, but had none of these—it only delivered a gore-fest. (And the implication I'm getting from that quote is that gore without suspense or terror is not desirable.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a perfect example. The reason I need a second opinion is, first, to get an outside assessment about whether the article is sufficient for promotion, and second, to show what I've been dealing with. I say paraphrase, he deletes the quotes, when I say he hasn't paraphrased the quotes, I get no reply. It's been seven days. I just wanna move on with this so I can work with someone who gives a damn. Cognissonance (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose Kevin Dewitt can delete the quotes if he wants to, Cognissonance. The question is whether the Critical response section meets the criteria after so much meat has been removed, and in my opinion it doesn't: the prose is repetitive and lacking detail: a version of "Publication X's reviewer Y gave" is used almost exclusively, and "criticized the plot" (or script) without further detail happens far too often. Care needs to be taken with terms like "mixed review", and the acting isn't always praised as much (or perhaps as universally) as the article makes it seem. I frequently see overlong quotes in these Critical response sections—anything 40 words or longer should typically be done as a blockquote, so shorter is better—but short quotes are sometimes desirable to get the flavor of the review. Paraphrasing is an important tool to convey the sense while not being so close that it's effectively copying. I can't speak to the rest of the article—maybe someone else will offer a more complete second opinion—but this section still needs work to meet the GA criteria in terms of prose quality and broadness. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's all I wanted to know. I'm not impressed with the rest of the article's prose, and the nominator is not available to redress it. Failing the nomination. Cognissonance (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)