Talk:The Witch (2015 film)/GA2

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 19:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought the film was fantastic, so I'm very happy to offer a review here. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * At present, the lead is very short. There's very little about the production and no details about the critical response. There is nothing about the awards.
 * "He is revealed to have been kidnapped by a witch, who crushes his body to pulp and uses it to make a flying ointment for her body." I wonder whether this is too literal, but, at the very least, perhaps you could make clear that this is not known to the family.
 * Is it worth mentioning Thomasin's threats to the twins about her being a witch?
 * "The next day, Caleb suffers a violent seizure and expels a small apple from his mouth before dying." I wonder if this could be expanded- the significance of apples in the plot, and perhaps a mention of the content of his speech?
 * You link "darkly handsome man" to Devil- do you have a reference that confirms that he is the Devil?
 * "It is unclear whether she is laughing or sobbing." Again, do you have a reference? If it's genuinely unclear and we don't have a reference, I'd advise removing it.
 * The development section feels underdeveloped. That's OK for GA purposes, but I am worried about how it lacks in context. You just jump straight into it!
 * "Eggers also chose to stylize the film's title as "The VVitch" in its title sequence and on posters, stating that he found this spelling in a Jacobean era pamphlet on witchcraft, along with other period texts" What does this have to do with filming? Relatedly, perhaps the filming and development sections could be merged.
 * "Mark Korven wrote the film's score, which aimed to be "tense and dissonant"," Scores don't have aims- could this be rephrased?
 * The DVD bonus features would be fantastic places to find information to expand the development section!
 * "3 1/2 stars" Out of how many?
 * "five stars" Out of how many? Also, five or 5?
 * "Jay Bauman of RedLetterMedia named the film his favourite film of 2016, labelling it "a masterpiece"." Reference? Maybe you could do a separate paragraph of year-end lists (or "best ever horror" or whatever lists) if there are a few of them?
 * "Lesley Coffin criticized A24" Who or what is A24, and why are they receiving criticism? A nice example of how the underdeveloped development section is holding the article back a little!
 * "while Keene, on social media, stated "The Witch is a gorgeous, thoughtful, scary horror film that 90% of the people in the theater with you will be too stupid to understand."[38]" Do we have a third-party source picking this up? I'm not sure I like the idea of quoting tweets from people uninvolved in the film to judge its reception!
 * "Jason Coffman expressed" Who is Coffman? Perhaps you could introduce him so we know why his views are being included in the article?

Not at all a bad article, and I'm sure that with a little more work, it will be GA-ready. I will spend some time reviewing the sources/images another time, but hopefully the comments above will give you something to work with in the meantime. Please review my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, a few more quick comments at this stage: Ok, hopefully that's all for now. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with someone further up the talk page about the plot section being too literal (as I half-noted above). It just isn't clear from the film how much is real. That's part of what makes it so good.
 * There is nothing in the article at moment (beyond a passing mention in the reception section) about the coming-of-age theme (including the whole coming-of-age/sexuality stuff going on with Caleb and Thomasina).
 * Again (sorry): the production section is very much underdeveloped. There's nothing in the article about the use of early-modern English, for example. That's surely an important part of the film.

Second opinion: The nominator's last activity was on July 7 and has not edited since then. S/he's probably on a Wikibreak so I'm pretty certain you would have to fail this. Slightlymad (talk) 05:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's really frustrating. From looking at the user's talk page, I see that this is not the first time I have spent time reviewing this user's nominations. Please do let me know if you intend to spend some time working with these comments, otherwise I am afraid I will have to close this review. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh no, don't close the review just yet. I do plan on using these little guides as soon as I can. I've been busy with personal life-stuff, you understand, so let me gather myself and I'll attack it. Thank you! --Matt723star (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course; very happy to keep the review open. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Ref. 8 does not mention Kiosk, Ontario. Cognissonance (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment

2nd opinion:, there has not been any activity in the article nor this review page for almost a month now. The nominator clearly has other plans, sorry but I think you'll have to close this review for now. SLIGHTLY mad   04:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for the note, I agree. I am closing the review at this time. While I'm sure you nominated this with the best of intentions, I note that it is extremely poor form (indeed, some would say disrespectful) to nominate something and then not engage with the review. This is the second time you've done this when I've been the reviewer. That said, I do hope that you can put some time into this article and hopefully renominate it once the identified issues have been resolved. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)