Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Horror film/archive1

Horror film
issues from peer review addressed, now covers HK-horrorcomedy as well as the italian/french/spanish scene, j-horror is linked to, now has references for all major assertions, bibliography, etc etc. looks good to me. Niz 14:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support per nom Niz 14:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment for an article about Horror films, the article is simply about the History of horror films and a long list of directors. Shouldn't more be added about horror films, like their impact or how they are viewed upon by the population or something along those lines? AndyZ 14:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * its in the text itself, e.g. discussion about the impact of 60s culture and vietnam-reaction on 70s horror, the "video-nasty" scare of the 80s etc. Niz 15:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess, it is incorporated into the section. However, for such an article, it seems kind of short. The paragraphs themselves are remarkably short; most are just 1-2 sentences long. A lot of the movies introduced in the history could use some expansion. There is only 1 reference listed. The introduction is separated into too many paragraphs for such a relatively short article. It is not thorough enough to make a featured article, so I'll Object for now. AndyZ 16:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support I'd like to see more articles like this featured. Most of the movies are wikilinked to their own page so don't need further expansion here. There looks like plenty of references, not just 1. And it covers everything it can about the genre. Anything else would just be original research. Could still be tidied up a bit though. Zzzzz 18:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Object; has no inline citations, only one reference, and only covers the history of horror films. More development of key movies and directors is needed (outside of the history section), and simply having a list of "notable" people and organizations at the end isn't acceptable; it needs to be developed. --Spangineeres  (háblame)  19:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * were you reading the same article? there were at least 11 in-line citations last i looked? Zzzzz 20:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Inline citations != imbedded external links. See Footnotes or Template talk:Inote. In any case, the inline citations should refer to more than just web pages. --Spangineeres  (háblame)  04:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Tgkohn 21:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Horror Films are used to scary the fright of yourself and it gives you a jolt and a shake for your life etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.124.108 (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Object. Article is missing a lot of information - It is dominated by the History section (I think the subsection titles in the History section could be more detailed instead of dates). There should be sections about the general thought of horror films, and discussion about how they are so different than other genres of film. 'Other notable items' section needs to have some actual context instead of a list. The coverage of today's horror movies and upcoming horror movies is very scarce. There are no real references (1 reference in the Bibliography section for the entire article?) and the internal HTML links need to be converted into footnotes with a 'Notes' section. The Bibliography section should be renamed 'References' too. Refer to peer review for more specific suggestions/comments. — Wackymacs 20:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - Good article. (Ibaranoff24 01:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC))
 * Object - Like it is said before, this should be History of Horror film. The article is missing a lot of information about the genre itself, its popularity. CG 08:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support I imagined it would be a little longer. Smerk 12:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Object - I would support making it a featured article as History of horror films. But as the article on Horror it needs more than history. For example, a discussion of sub-genres (e.g. slasher film,splatter film), some tipology (like supernatural monsters vs natural scares). Moreover, cliches and conventions (or going against cliches) are very important for horror films (e.g. final girl), so should be discussed. - AdamSmithee 21:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Object as per AdamSmithee.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Great article. | QzDaddy 14:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Object per AdamSmithee and AndyZ. Andrew Levine 00:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Object because it's too focused on history, as noted by others. Tuf-Kat 03:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Object but not because of is focus on history, rather, much of the main article is rooted in popular views of the film (probably informed by relatively sloppy newspaper reviewers) instead of a more systematic and careful analysis. Very few citations are used, indicating a non-neutral POV. The article would greatly benefit from including summarized analysis from the many theorists and aestheticians who have discussed individual films and genres.