Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Texas Chain Saw Massacre/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Roger Davies 19:18, 1 June 2008.

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
I wish to withdraw this FA nomination until further notice —Preceding unsigned comment added by EclipseSSD (talk • contribs) 18:51, 1 June 2008

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has reached at least Good Article status, and I believe it meets the criteria for FA, including relevant images, and has clear well-written layout, and reliable references. EclipseSSD (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. Good job, appears to be through.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * Current ref 2 "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Overview" isn't the publisher Allmovies?
 * What makes http://www.thevoiceofreason.com/ComedyMovieWatchPopcorn/TexasChainsawmassacre.htm a reliable source?
 * Likewise http://www.houseofhorrors.com/gein.htm?
 * And http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072271/trivia?
 * You use http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/1021112-texas_chainsaw_massacre/ to cite "Steve Crum of Dispatch-Tribune Newspapers criticises it as "Cultish trash that set new low standards for brutality"" and "The film opened to a large amount of controversy, but despite this, it became a smash hit in the United States. The film is also considered an innovator of the genre, pre-dating Halloween (1978), Friday the 13th (1980), and A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984). It has received much praise from critics, mainly because its gritty and unsettling background that made it seem real." although I'm not sure I see how that source backs up the claims.
 * I couldn't check the reliability of current ref 22 "The Texas Chainsaw Mssare Atari game" because the ISP I'm on while at a clients has it firewalled.
 * Links checked out okay. Sources seemed okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Ref 22 looks unreliable to me: http://www.x-entertainment.com/articles/0834/ is an independent site run by two guys. No sources given at that webpage. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 18:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment a good start. I enjoyed reading this but there is still some work to be done before the article will be ready to be featured. The writing needs to be sharper as shown in these examples: This should be something like: The location of the house used for the film now shows no signs of a house ever having stood there. There are many other examples like this in an otherwise well written article. Please do not just fix these two. I suggest you ask someone new to the article to take a critical look. Graham Colm Talk 18:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The house used for the film's location now suggests no indication there ever was a house there.
 * Special effects were simple and likewise limited by the budget. - There is no need to say likewise here.

Oppose. I think this article can be better. Much better. This is one of the most influential horror films, and by that designation, films in general, and the article doesn't go into detail about its cultural impact or enough explanation about the filming or production. You can find a wealth of information in print sources such as books and film journal articles about this movie. Search Film Indexes Online at a library (I just did) to find journal articles for this film (I found about 30 references). Use this book: Eaten alive at a chainsaw massacre: the films of Tobe Hooper, as well as others on the horror film genre. I've never seen this film and I know the article is not comprehensive. That's how pervasive the film is in culture. An entire section should be dedicated to the depiction of the graphic violence in the film. I suggest you de-list the article and work on it some more. Ask folks at WP:Films for assistance if you don't have access to the Film Indexes Online. --Moni3 (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I'll take on board the feedback, and try to cleanup as requested. By the way, the graphic violence in the film is extremely minimal. Tobe Hooper went for the effect of actually scaring people, rather than over the top gore.--EclipseSSD (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
 * Usually, the Plot section of an article needs to be shortened. In this case, however, I think it should be a bit longer.
 * "An estimated $83,532(USD) was raised." — The placement of "USD" seems odd; I don't think it follows WP:MOS.
 * The list in "Release" should be converted to prose.
 * Why is there one of those labels that appear when you hover over an image, in the "Tobe Hooper setting up a shot using an Eclair NPR 16mm." image?
 * "Financing" might be better placed as a subsection under "Production", and perhaps the paragraphs in that section could also be organized better under subsections such as "Creation", "Filming", and "Cast"? Just some examples.
 * You mention that the film grossed $30 million in the United States (and the fact that it is the most successful independent film) — twice. Is that necessary?
 * "Critical reception" can be renamed to just "Reception".
 * The amount of money that the film made should go in Release, I believe, while the amount of money the film cost to produce goes in Production.
 * A space should be in "crowd.[6]The".
 * "(1991).[7][6][8]" — Sort the references in ascending order.
 * "about thirty miles southeast" — Use the convert template so that the length in kilometers is also shown.
 * "August of 1973, under" — Years do not need to be linked unless they are significant to the understanding of the article.
 * "House [5]." — References go after punctuation marks.
 * "character. [6]" No spaces between punctuation and references.
 * I would suggest replacing all IMDB references with something else, as it is generally considered unreliable.
 * This tells me there are at least three paragraphs that are very short, and I agree with it because that's how the article looks like. There are a lot of paragraphs that are fairly short and could either be expanded on or merged with other paragraphs.
 * Format the references; some say "Retrieved on" while others say "last accessed on"; be consistent and use the cite web template.

These are only some of the problems that this article faces. It will need a significant amount of work before it reaches FA status, but it is doable. Gary King ( talk ) 18:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Help

I can't do all of this on my own. At least I managed to make it to Good Article status.--EclipseSSD (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That is understandable. I would suggest withdrawing this FAC (by saying you wish to withdraw at the top of this FAC) unless you can find some other editors to help out. Gary King ( talk ) 18:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Getting this to Good Article is a fine achievement. It is very, very difficult for most editors to get an article to FA without help. The editors at WP:Films should help with this; as Gary said, "it is doable". Graham. Graham Colm Talk 18:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * :) Yep, I've been on both ends of the process now (having had 2 FAs and a few that I later withdrew, and now I am reviewing articles) so I understand very well the difficulties faced here. I would be glad to see the article back later on after it has improved. Gary King ( talk ) 18:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Graham and Gary. Do not be discouraged. If you love this film, it will not be difficult to work on this. Between the GA designation of To Kill a Mockingbird and its FA, it doubled in size. Be patient and tenacious. It will be very rewarding. --Moni3 (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, everybody. I'm actually proposing a Texas Chainsaw Massacre project which will help with stuff like this. You can find it here. --EclipseSSD (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a task force or something, at WP:FILM, might be better and elicit more response. Gary K</i>ing</b> ( talk ) 19:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.