Talk:Slasher film/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this article is not ready for GA status at this time because of sourcing problems. There are requests for citations, and whole sections which are not sourced at all (for instance, "Early slashers" and "The slasher film in its prime"). This is a subject about which a fair amount has been written, and so we'd need to see references to decent, published works; magazine and newspaper articles, published books and academic journals. A lot of the sources cited are very good and entirely appropriate, but there are issues with some of them; primary sources, such as personal websites of directors, should probably be avoided. It's also not clear to me why siskelandebert.org should be considered reliable. There are other issues which should be addressed before this is ready for GA status:
 * The lead is far too short, and it'd be great if we could get a (free) image to lead the article.
 * The article currently uses a lot of non-free content; ideally, we want as little as possible. Only non-free images which add significantly to the article, and without which the article would be seriously lacking, are permitted. Detailed, specific rationales are required for each usage of non-free content; these are lacking in many cases here.
 * Avoid "the" in section titles
 * "The 1970s were arguably the Golden Age for exploitation films" Weasel words. It just comes across as trying to make up for the fact that no source is cited.
 * "their use of their often low budgets" Very odd phrase
 * Avoid very short paragraphs; they can damage flow.
 * "is widely considered the first proper slasher film" Again, weasel words
 * "It was not until the huge box office success of" A good example of how the tone does not feel appropriate in places. We're trying to write a dispassionate and neutral encyclopedia article, while this reads more like a general interest magazine article on slasher films.
 * "The slasher film in its prime" is not a good section title
 * "The genre arguably peaked in 1983" Weaselly
 * "Notable non-US slashers are Cut from Australia, Cold Prey from Norway, Gutterballs from Canada, Anatomy from Germany and the French titles Haute Tension and Them." It has not been made clear until this point that we're talking about an American phenomenon. In any case, I don't think it would be fair to say that slasher is a uniquely American genre.
 * "The definition of a slasher film varies depending on who you ask" Weaselly, inappropriate tone.
 * I'm concerned about possible copyright/plagiarism issues with the Vera Dika list. Has this been copied word-for-word?
 * "Other common characteristics include: ..." This is all unsourced.
 * The "Controversy and critical analysis" section could/should be expanded considerably
 * "The TV writer and producer Liz Friedman graduated from Wesleyan University with a degree in sociology and her thesis was entitled "A Feminist and Class-based Analysis of Slasher Films".[20]" So what?
 * "In the 1990s, the horror genre was almost dead. Audiences and critics were getting very tired of the same, typical teen slasher films." Again with the tone
 * "Scream kicked off a new slasher cycle" Ditto

My primary concern is the lack of sourcing. Because this is a big and significant topic, I'd recommend dealing with my suggestions (focussing on finding and using decent sources, and removing those things that you cannot cite to a decent source) before sending this to peer review; suggestions there should set you in good stead for a good article candidacy. You may also be able to find others willing to help out at the film WikiProject. I hope this review has been helpful, and I hope this does not discourage you from working on this article. J Milburn (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)