Talk:Ted the Caver/GA1

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

Nominator: 10:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 05:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments
Hi, I'm happy to review this! At first glance it looks like an impressively thorough article for the topic, and I look forward to improving it together. For very small edits I usually prefer to make them myself, though you are of course always welcome to revert or change anything I edit. I'll note bigger suggests in the list below. (I think signing each one will make it easier for you to use the "reply" feature if you want.) ~ L 🌸  (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not required for the article to have images, but I think they would be nice: could you find a cave image that relates to the story? Or maybe an image of an angelfire web page to illustrate the part that talks about the rudimentary web design? ~ L 🌸  (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nice find for this! ~ L 🌸  (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Having looked more closely at the prose, I think every individual paragraph in the "Background" and "Analysis and legacy" sections is well-written, but the key topics (e.g., creepypasta) feel repetitive because they are mentioned in more than one place, even though you add useful new details in each place. I suggest reorganizing a little, by creating more subsections. For example, I could see this info working with what a "publication" section (for the details about angelfire) and a "reception" section with subsections for "authenticity," "creepypasta," and "real-time updates". Or maybe keep the internet-history stuff in "background" but break down "reception" and "major themes"... whatever seems to you like a natural way to cluster these key topics. (For inspiration, maybe check out how I approached this with Beachy Head (poem).) ~ L 🌸  (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * On the source check, I'm seeing a little close paraphrasing which should be addressed. Some of this might naturally clear up when grouping information more into sub-points, as discussed above. The bullets below list the close paraphrasing I've found. (Also, a ping since I forgot last time: ) ~ L 🌸  (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * He cited the unsettling setting inhabited by a supernatural entity, the "obsessed narrator" who nevertheless continues to return to the danger, and an ambiguous ending implying the danger's continued existence.
 * In using them, "Ted the Caver" takes the horror trope of "found document" or "found footage" stories and modifies them for a digital context -- this probably shouldn't be cited to just p 79 because its kind of splicing a statement on that page with one from earlier
 * it could not convey the source material's psychological tension and had an ineffectual twist somehow feels like close paraphrasing while also kind of changing the meaning of the original [the] twist sucked a lot of the psychological tension from the plot. This review was pretty detailed with a number of interesting points.
 * As an example of how to summarize rather than paraphrase, I might replace the sentence about this review with something like "Padraig Cotter, reviewing for Screen Rant, said the film fell short of its source material. Despite decent acting and production values, the new twist ending undermined the slow-build horror and eerie ambiguity that he appreciated from the original creepypasta." (Feel free to use that if you like it.)
 * I think it's just those three, actually, that really need to be addressed. In all other respects the source check looks good -- the Crawford piece is a great find and all the sources I read were appropriate supports for the cited sentences. For the GA pass, then, what's really required is addressing that close paraphrasing, and then I recommend but won't require some kind of "refinement" pass for the structure/slow of paragraphs. Nice work! ~ L 🌸  (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)