Wikipedia:Peer review/Saw VI/archive1

Saw VI
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… it passed its GA review on March 4, 2010 and I have been doing a lot of tweaking and copy-editing since then. I would like to see where it stands now before I jump into my first FA review, which I plan on doing with this article. I don't want to embarrass my self by completely failing as soon as I nominate it. :) Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks,  Mike  Allen   03:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Nosleep ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 14:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw this movie. The carousel scene gave me nightmares :(
 * The best Saw trap ever. :)  Mike   Allen   02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hank (Gerry Mendicino), his janitor and a smoker, is in the same situation across from him. Hank is killed when he fails to hold his breath longer. Doesn't mention how he's killed. Does that matter? Wasn't there some kind of poisonous gas in the mask or something?
 * My understanding is that a film's plot summary it should not go into extraneous details. Like how someone is killed, why they where killed, where they were killed and what they were killed with.  Hank does not play in any main part of the "games", or plot, of the film as he was just pawn in Jigsaw's game.  No, I don't think anything was in the masks, not even oxygen.   Mike   Allen   02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Nosleep  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 06:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In the second test, Jigsaw's puppet informs William that he must choose to save either his file clerk Allen (Shawn Ahmed) or his secretary Addy (Janelle Hutchison), and let the other die. Were you previously advised to pare down the plot summary? Because I think it's a tad lacking when the irony of William's decision isn't pointed out (Allen is in perfect health but has no family, while Addy has a chronic condition but has kids).
 * Yes, actually on two separate occasions someone asked that the plot be trimmed and stay within WP:PLOT (400-700 words). See the talk page.  I never "wrote" the plot section, I just trimmed it down and fixed errors.  It's possible that I've whacked off too much. When the GA review was done, the plot was at 636 words and it's now at 705 words.  Their character pages (List of Saw Characters) has more details on their "games".  Mike   Allen   02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I do think it's a tad lacking, but I'm not really up on FA standards for articles on films.


 * When Hoffman returns to the observation room, he finds a letter that Jill has placed on the desk, which he himself had written to blackmail Amanda Young  Department of redundancy department?
 * Fixed.  Mike  Allen   02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It was stated that questions about characters stated by whom?
 * I just removed it. It didn't fit anywhere.  Mike   Allen   02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The new actress Tanedra Howard from the 2008 VH1 reality acting competition show Scream Queens won a role in the film. I think this could be worded better to specify that one is the direct result of the other, that is, that Scream Queens existed for the sole purpose of awarding a role in the film and that Howard is not just someone from that show as the first part of the sentence would seem to suggest.
 * Fixed.  Mike  Allen   02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Armstrong said there will be traps called the "carousel room" and the "steam room". Certainly this sentence came from when information on the film was still speculative. It should probably be removed, since those traps have already been explained above in the article.
 * I don't quite understand this request. The "carousel room" and "steam room" is only discussed in the Filming and traps section.  Mike   Allen   02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We already know what the "carousel room" and the "steam room" are from reading the article. So giving scant details, in the future tense, later on in the article doesn't really help anything.


 * Buena Vista, the film's foreign distributor, has since filed an appeal. Resolution to this? And the dated language should be avoided. Motion picture rating system says Buena Vista, the distributor, unsuccessfully appealed the decision.
 * I agree. Fixed.  Mike   Allen   02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Saw VI opened in 3,036 theaters at No. 2 with USD$6,957,263—$2,292 per theater, only behind Paranormal Activity. I think behind only is the more common usage.
 * Fixed.  Mike  Allen   02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * On the Halloween weekend, it moved down to No. 6 and made $5,270,79 Sounds clunky. Maybe On Halloween weekend or On the weekend of Halloween
 * Fixed.  Mike  Allen   02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Christopher Monfette of IGN Movies rated Saw VI three out of five Kim Newman of Empire gave Saw VI 3 out of 5 Blake French of AMC Filmcritic gave Saw VI three and a half out of 5 Brad Miska of Bloody Disgusting gave the film 7 out of 10 These need to be standardized. WP:MOSNUM would seem suggest using numerals for all, though three and a half is a bit thorny as I'm not sure "3½" would fulfill accessibility concerns (do screen readers verbalize "3½" as "three and a half" ?)
 * Do you mean write the numbers out as words? Not sure about screen readers. Mike   Allen   02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I had it backwards. MOSNUM actually suggests spelling out numbers below ten. But either way, don't mix the numerals and words together like this.

Music videos by Mushroomhead, Memphis May Fire, Hatebreed and Suicide Silence was also be included with all editions Mushroomhead and Suicide Silence are already linked above. Linking them again is redundant.
 * Fixed.  Mike  Allen   02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is quite good. I'm not the best at critiquing the technical aspects (spacing, accessibility, that sort of thing), so you may wish to have someone else dive in as well. Nosleep ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 21:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your time and suggestions. Do you usually review FACs?  At any rate, what is your honest opinion about taking this through FA within the next month or so?  I'm not a professional writer -- obviously. lol  Mike   Allen   02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, the article seems to assume a familiarity with the Saw franchise as a whole (much as the movie did). Jill Tuck (Betsy Russell) meets with Hoffman at her clinic; he informs her that he is taking control of the games No need to retell Jill's life story, and surely the details about the clinic are in her article, but an uninitiated reader may not be sure of the meaning of "he is taking control of the games" There are several other instances like this in the article. Nosleep ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 21:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid if I keep trying to explain to the reader who each character is in the plot section, I'll run over to 1,000 words. I've thought about making a cast... *gulp*... list and including a brief summary of each character along with real-world casting details.  I don't care about cast lists and my understanding is that is frowned upon with FAs.  Do you think that would work?   Mike   Allen   02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not really a frequent FA reviewer. Nosleep  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 06:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * However, I think the article's chances at FA would be greatly improved if the article contained a photo. I suppose the poster technically satisfies the FA requirement to have an image in the article, but even just a picture of someone from the cast or crew would be very helpful. Is there a free use image of Greutert, Outerbridge, or Mandylor? They'd be the best options. I notice there are images of Bell, Russell, and Smith in their articles, but they're more like supporting players in this film. Nosleep  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 23:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No free pictures of them that I'm aware of. Many non-free pictures though (like Mandylor posing with fans at SawMania, etc). Ugh.  I actually got lucky on the Saw VII article, someone was close to production in Toronto and got a snapshot of the set.  It was unusual for them to be in public filming like that anyway.  It's possible to use a non-free image with critical commentary if no free images can be found.  Like a scene of the film or something. I don't know what it would be though.   On your other notes, I see what you mean now and will fix those issues.  Thanks again.  Mike   Allen   01:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments from Cunard

I haven't seen this movie, so my comments will be from the perspective of one who knows little about this topic.
 * Not a Saw fan, or just haven't seen this particular one? Or did you stop at part 3 like most?
 * I've never seen any of the Saw films before, and I'm not sure I want to see them. Mutilation and torture in graphic detail–not my type of thing. Cunard (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The film's plot has a heavy emphasis on the 2009 economic struggle of the U.S. government attempting to regulate healthcare.[1] – This piece of information isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. The lead should summarize the article's contents, so this should be included in one of the bottom sections. Additionally, "the part of the sentence from "2009 ... attempting to regulate healthcare" is a bit awkward/unclear. Would "the U.S. government's attempt to regulate healthcare" or "... U.S. government and its attempt to regulate healthcare" be better?
 * That sentence is kind of new. I didn't add it and to prevent it from being WP:OR, I found a citation for it. I really couldn't fit anywhere in the body. Would it fit better in the Critical reception section?
 * I don't know. If you can tie it into critical reception, it might fit there. You could also include it in a new section about the film's themes (see Manual of Style (film)), if there is enough information for something like "contemporary influences on the film". If it doesn't fit anywhere, though, I'd just remove it. Cunard (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do. I suppose it doesn't have to be a huge section, just a paragraph. <span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike   Allen   05:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * which followed the tradition of being released on the Friday before Halloween – it's not clear what tradition this is continuing. Perhaps you can add "followed the tradition of Saw films being released ..."
 * Fixed.


 * When Hoffman returns to the observation room, he finds a letter that Jill has placed on the desk, which he had written to blackmail Amanda Young (Shawnee Smith), while Jill enters suddenly and shocks him, while William simultaneously reaches the end of his path, finding himself between the two cages. – this sentence is too long; it should be broken up into two or more sentences to improve readability.
 * Fixed.


 * Production: Developing and writing: This section is a bit listy in that it lists the people who returned as writers, producers, cinematographers, etc. for Saw VI but I don't know if you can avoid that. Is there any more information about the writing process you can add?
 * In May 2008 it was reported that Kevin Greutert and On July 26, 2007 it was announced that Costas Mandylor would sign on ... – try to avoid writing in the passive voice. Who reported that Kevin Greutert would become the director or Costas Mandylor would continue to portray Mark Hoffman? Perhaps something like "The Saw franchise announced that Kevin Greutert ..." would be better? There are some more instances of "it was reported" or "it was announced" throughout the article that can be reworded in a similar manner.
 * Actually, after reading this section thoroughly---I hate it. I hate the "so and so returned" being used repetitively. What was I thinking.  I wish I had more sources to work with, but I believe I have used every source there are for Saw VI.  Though, two interviews here and here already being cited in the article may have some more script material.  I'll read those interviews more thoroughly. Those are the two more informative ones.    I think I solved the "it was reported by" and "[..] returned".
 * Yes, much better. The changes you made have significantly improved the prose of that section. As Erik mentioned on the talk page, you could also try to find more information in periodicals that are available in the research databases at public libraries that could be used to expand this section. Cunard (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will. I do know Fangoria covers each film every year.  Not sure about any other magazine, or any "in depth" coverage.  Maybe I'll be surprised once I start looking... <span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike   Allen   05:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * he stated that the traps or "games" in Saw VI would be more personal to the victims and would be more one-on-one with the trap. – perhaps "...more personal to the victims who would be more one-on-one with their traps" would be better?
 * Agreed.


 * "David Armstrong thinks visually, it might be his favorite saying ..." – this reads like original research, though it's not. Perhaps "David Armstrong thinks "visually", which reviewer Mike Pereira comments might be Armstrong's favorite saying" would be better?
 * I've changed it.. but it still doesn't sound right? I don't know.
 * I think I've fixed it so that it reads better. Cunard (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The MPAA gave the film an R rating without running the movie for "sequences of grisly bloody violence and torture, and language". – this sentence is confusing to me and probably needs a little rephrasing for clarity.
 * Actually, wow. That's a big mistake I've made.  Kevin actually said "Yep, that’s our badge of honor, courtesy of the MPAA!  [...] we got the R without ruining the movie, and it’s a huge relief."  NOT "running".  This has been in the article for months too.  Sigh.


 * It was released on October 20, 2009, through Trustkill Records. – this sentence needs a citation.
 * I think what happened here is that it was sourced with Fangoria, but since they don't like to retain articles on their website for very long (so you will buy the magazine?), it was removed and is now unrecoverable. This is why I web cite every ref before they suddenly go offline.  I will look for another site, but doubt I'm lucky.
 * Though the source is no longer online, it is still usable. The online link is just a courtesy link, so you can include the relevant citation info without a url; see WP:DEADREF (the paragraph beginning with Deactivate the dead link, and keep the citation information if still appropriate to the article) for how to do this. Cunard (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually that particular statement has never been sourced. The only source available is the official website.  Which I think I could use since it answers what I need: who released and when.  Right? <span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike   Allen   05:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe that the official website qualifies as an acceptable source to verify the information. Cunard (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * All three editions have a "2-Movie Set", which bundle the first film. – should it be "...bundles the first film?
 * I'm sure it should be. :P
 * Occasional grammatical errors tend creep into my writing, too. ;)

I don't think this article is ready for FA yet, though it is getting very close. I don't think it would pass Featured article criteria 1(a). The prose needs more work, so I recommend contacting someone from WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/List of participants who can provide more help with copyediting. Thank you for this entertaining and informative article. Cunard (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "I don't think this article is ready for FA yet". After reading your concerns about prose (and the concern of not having any images), I don't think so either.   Thank you, I will contact someone about the copyediting.  I just came to Wikipedia last October (editing) and recently began working heavily on Saw VI and created Saw 3D in February, from scratch.  I would love to get at least Saw and Saw III to GA one day.  But it's easier to write a film article when you're updating it from the beginning–to–end of the film development cycle (to me).  Since Saw 3D is the last film, I won't have to worry about prepping another one next year, so maybe soon I will being work on the others.  Thanks for you comments (and copyedits of your own)!  Since the films are so controversial and has a "certain" fan base, I was worried that no one would bother reviewing it.  So this peer review is reassuring. :D <span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike   Allen   06:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I believe that Saw VI fulfills nearly all of the criteria at WP:FA? except for the 1(a) I mentioned earlier and also possibly 1(c). There may be more information in periodicals that could be used to expand the article. For example, you note that the film is controversial and has a "certain" fan base; maybe you can include that in the article&mdash;perhaps under a section titled "Controversies"? Also, have any of the sources talked about themes in Saw? I recommend reading film articles that are featured articles to give you ideas for what else you can include in Saw VI. Looking through Category:FA-Class film articles, I found Bride of Frankenstein, which is also a horror film and is an FA. Keep in mind, though, that a number of the FAs promoted in 2008 or earlier would not be considered FAs under today's standards. For example, many paragraphs in Sunset Boulevard (film) are unreferenced, so Sunset Boulevard would fail a Featured article review if it were not improved. Cunard (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it's not just this entry that is controversial it's the franchise as a whole that is. I will study some of the current featured horror films.
 * Okay. Was there anything controversial about Saw VI that was different than the previous films? If so, there can be a possible "Controversies" section. If not, then never mind. Cunard (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added some info from the Fangoria issue with this edit. <span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike  Allen   19:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting to this, but hopefully the following are helpful. Good work so far, it will be interesting to see how this does at FAC. I would recommend asking a member or two at the Guild of Copyeditors to take a look before nominating to trim and reword certain portions of the article. If you need any clarification on any of the above points, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * In the lead, "After the producers edited out the "most violent scenes"", a citation would probably be needed here if 'most violent scenes' is going to be quoted. If you don't want to cite here, then some slight rephrasing would alleviate any issues.
 * That is something new I added since it was just announced that Spain will show the film. I changed it to, "After the producers edited out the offensive content, the film will be released in the country with a "18" rating on October 8, 2010."  Is that better?
 * Works for me. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Although it's interesting about the rating of the film in Spain, since it still has yet to be fully released there, you may want to start off with the earlier releases before leading into Spain.
 * Fixed
 * "The film opened behind Paranormal Activity..." This could use a little more clarification, especially with those unfamiliar with box office jargon. Was it released after this film or, I'm assuming, grossed less than PA in its opening weekend?
 * Is this better: "The film opened at the box office in second place behind Paranormal Activity and earned $14 million its opening weekend and went on to gross over $64 million worldwide, making it the lowest-grossing Saw film to date."
 * Or maybe something like "Grossing $14 million in its opening weekend, Saw VI placed second to PA's $21 million. Saw VI went on to gross over $64 million worldwide, making it the lowest-grossing Saw film to date."? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed
 * "The writers of both Saw IV and Saw V, Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan returned to write the sixth installment." It seems to me that this would flow better with the names at the beginning followed by the clause.
 * Agreed
 * "Greutert said in an interview with Bloody Disgusting that Saw VI would have the most characters in any Saw film to date including a lot of new characters to the series, but said that the writers would stay true to previous story lines to prevent any "violations of logic and chronology"." "Said" is used twice here, see if this could be reworded a bit to remove the redundancy.
 * I trimmed this.
 * "Lionsgate also held their annual "Give 'Til It Hurts" Blood Drive which was donated to the Red Cross." This could also use some rewording as it currently reads that they donated the drive to the Red Cross, not the actual blood donations. Although the drive is familiar to Saw fans, a sentence or two on what the drive entails would be helpful (what separates it from other blood drives).
 * I couldn't find more sources that said when the blood drive took place, where it took place or anything worth noting. So I removed it.
 * You should probably still keep it, as it is something that is prevalent throughout the franchise and kind of separates it from other films. Maybe you can get some further details from here about the background of the drive and its past success for the other films' releases. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought about sourcing it with the official facebook page since it clearly says when the event took place. Would that be fine for the date verification?  I found article that explains how the blood drive works, but it's from 2007, I think would still work for the background. <span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike   Allen   04:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Facebook would be deemed a reliable source. I'd say stick with the original source that covers the specific details of the drive in relation to this film, and use the others to supplement details about the background of the drive itself. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, Facebook is being used more and more by official people as an "official" site.  That page is from Lionsgate, and it lists when the blood drive dates took place.  That's all I would need the source for.  But I'm sure during a FAC a reviewer would automatically dismiss a "facebook.com" citation.  Sad. :(    I'll just work with what I've got.  Thanks.  <span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike   Allen   02:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's okay for listing in the external links section if it is for the official page, but for citations, I don't think it would be deemed reliable. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Saw VI opened in 3,036 theaters at No. 2 with USD$6,957,263" This would read better as "at the second position" or "in second place". Also, the infobox uses the '$' by itself, but 'USD$' is used here. To stay consistent, one label should be used throughout the article. Since the film opened in second place, it may be helpful to mention how much Paranormal Activity opened to.
 * Fixed
 * "...and was pulled from 1,314 theaters and made $449,512—$579." It appears the "per theater" designation was left out here.
 * Fixed
 * If going for FA, a few more reviews would be helpful, especially if any foreign reviews could be included.
 * Will be looking.
 * I tried searching for a variety of images of the premiere, cast, and film set a few weeks back, but didn't find any likely candidates that I could get an author's permission for. Before nominating, I'd recommend trying to find a free image if possible. If not, then if there is significant coverage on one of the traps, a non-free screenshot could be included.
 * Thanks for that. I had seen you were the one that uploaded the Cary Elwes photo. That really helped the Saw 3D article. :)  I'll have to use a non-free image, probably an image of a trap.
 * I would like to use an image of the carousel trap since there is a good commentary for that particular contraption. Though no good quality/promotional screen shots are available online, so I may have to snap a screenshot from the DVD. If that fails, they released a promotion poster with that trap. <span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike   Allen   04:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could consider using a small video portion that could focus on one of the traps. Although our articles are not to be censored on here, if you were going to use one, I would recommend a clip that is not too gruesome but places strong emphasis on the trap related to the text. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, that may work. Though, how do I transfer a .wmv or .mp4 to a .ogg file format? <span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike   Allen   02:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are using Firefox, there is an application that can be downloaded to convert files over to the .ogg format. The Multimedia department may provide some further guidance (and if not, help to edit the page to tailor it to how it works for you, since it doesn't seem that videos are springing up around Wikipedia). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, if it works, I hope the 39 second video will be deemed useful and within fair-use guidelines in the end. <span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike  Allen   06:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Will be interesting indeed. I've been looking at that guide of copy editors, trying to pick someone I think would be interesting in reading the article. <span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike   Allen   21:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: instead of finding a particular copy-editer, I listed the article on their requests page. <span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike  Allen   02:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)