Talk:The Cabin in the Woods/GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi - I'll make copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * For the record, Earwig's copyvio has inflated scores from (attributed) quotes.


 * There are several one-sentence paragraphs. See if they can go with other paragraphs or be expanded.


 * As it stands, it lacks a bit of depth - we have a plot and reviews but I think some more meat on the motivations of the creators, influences etc. and legacy etc. See here, here, here and here for starters.

Additional sources to explore Suggestion
These three academic sources contain additional information on the film which would benefit the article. Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   14:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed

Doctoral Dissertations



are you gonna take a look at this and try to work on it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll take care of this within the next month or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs) 02:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Procedural note: Apparently the nominator has neglected his duty to resolve the concerns raised by the reviewer, as the article has not had an edit since the review was initiated. I think it's safe to say that this nomination be closed. Slightlymad 08:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The comment "The next month or so" is not what a nominator should be saying. Reviews should be done in 1-14 days usually unless serious issues are present. Failing unless someone comes forward with continuation — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanAir88 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: - comprehensiveness, particularly out-of-universe material, is wanting. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)