Talk:Prey (1977 film)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Prey (1977 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 03:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Don't feel obligated but I have Isabelle Eberhardt (film) nominated for GA if you're interested in reviewing that. Freikorp (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Lead

   Two uses of "less than" in one sentence doesn't read well.

   Production

   "Prey took a total of ten weeks..." Can you avoid having a two sentence paragraph by merging this somehow? The final paragraph is so small it looks out of place. Same issue with the opening paragraph in 'Interpretation'

   Interpretation

   I've never seen an 'Interpretation' sub-heading on a film article before. Why have you chosen this instead of the more common heading 'Themes', which would appear after the cast section?

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   I don't really see the point of the double feature poster. Why don't you just modify the image to only include the relevant poster?

   I agree; it isn't helpful to the reader, who will be expecting to see the artwork for this film and no other. Other than the fact that they were once paired for exhibition, the two features have nothing in common (thematically or otherwise) and the presence of the double poster in this article likely impedes rather than aids understanding of the topic. File cropped and renamed. SuperMarioMan–Talk 06:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Just to clarify about the poster. I found originally only as the double feature poster, not as one on it's own, which may not be an accurate way to display the image. Was the film ever released outside this double feature? Not sure. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   @Andrzejbanas: I'm not sure either. There are a few posters in other languages (e.g. this) but it's unclear whether or not these images are also cropped. I'm unable to find any English-language art from the time of the film's original release that isn't derived from the Chantrell double-feature poster. If potential misrepresentation is a serious concern, I'd prefer that the article simply go back to displaying a DVD or video cassette cover. SuperMarioMan–Talk 16:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Having a home video box usually gives me the impression that the film wasn't released theatrically first, which isn't the case. It's hard to really say what would best represent it as people will have different reactions and this is a really special case for a relatively obscure film, so I'd suggest that we maybe just use the current single Prey poster, but note under it that it's half of part of a double bill poster, and mention that on the image upload as well. I don't wan't to hold up the GA review anymore than I have, so I'm good for a quick and easy solution. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   I've re-done the caption. The file page makes it clear that the image is a portion of a larger poster and the original source URL has been retained. SuperMarioMan–Talk 03:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I must say i'm thoroughly impressed with your work here. It's quite rare to find a GAN so close to passing. Once minor issues are replied to i'll be happy to promote this. Freikorp (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Freikorp: Thanks for your review. I acknowledge the above and will address the points raised over the next few hours. SuperMarioMan–Talk 17:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The necessary changes have now been made. SuperMarioMan–Talk 06:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Happy for this to pass now. :) Freikorp (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)