Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Boogeyman 2/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC) [1].

Boogeyman 2

[edit]
Notified: PanagiotisZois, Paradoxasauruser, WikiProject Film

Review section

[edit]

I am not sure this article meets the WP:FACRITERIA as raised by multiple users in the talk page (thread 1; thread 2; FAC, notice given).

Regarding the following specific criteria:

- well-written: the prose is informative but somewhat unpolished in some places, and could be rewritten to be more engaging

- comprehensive: Production, release, and sequel may benefit from expansion

- well-researched: the article would benefit from additional sources and is missing citations, for instance, no citation for the Cast and for "Evolution of the killer's mask, dubbed Boogie Mask". NB: I wasn't sure if Cast needs citations in general but I have seen that many good articles have it, e.g. The Thing (1982 film)#Cast.

- media: lacks significant use of images and other media, where appropriate, as required for FA.

N.B.: the talk page has not addressed these changes (the previous thread is also from 7 years ago) so I suspect the original authors may be inactive. Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - How is the lack of images to get this demoted from Featured Articles? GamerPro64 22:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Caleb Stanford: First of all, the FAR notifications step is not optional. Please complete step 6, "Notify relevant parties", per the instructions at the top of WP:FAR. PanagiotisZois is still an active editor. Second... 1, 3, and 4 are not very actionable as they stand. Fair-use requirements are fairly strict on Wikipedia (see WP:NFC). If you want to upload some and think you can justify them, great, but they are only rarely required. Jaws (film) is an example of a FA-class article that only uses a movie poster as a fair-use image, say. For 1, this is a vague comment. I'm sure some people can be found to disagree with any of the prose. Do you have any particular examples of difficult-to-fix paragraphs that need rewriting that aren't just stylistic preferences? And for 3, Cast sections are often implicitly considered sourced to the credits of a work itself. If you've found a source you'd love to include which has the full cast, sure, add it, but if you'd just be adding a citation to the film's credits, it's not required. In the same way, the mask caption is just stating how the image was compiled. Now, that said, I do agree it would be nice if the uploader could add more specific links in the image upload (e.g. the timestamp of the still, a link to the page of the blog, etc.), but this isn't a significant enough issue to FAR most likely.
    • The main possibly actionable complaint here is #2, comprehensive. The article is a bit on the short side. However, there is a range of opinions on how deep an article should go, and an "overview" approach is valid too. But it helps to be more specific. Are there in-depth sources that are not currently consulted in the article, but should be? What are they? That may be what is helpful here. SnowFire (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment. I've just made the required notifications myself. Not a huge deal but coordinators might consider starting the "clock" on moving to FARC as starting slightly later due to the delay. SnowFire (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC: To be honest, I don't think the article is exactly FA-worthy. At least, not for me, based on the kind of work I expect of myself when I work on media-related articles nowadays. Just looking at the "Reception" section, for example, the section is extremely small and uses only 6 sources. Granted, this is mostly due to the lack of overall sources that reviewed the film. Another issue is that outside of IGN, none of the other sources are exactly high-quality. The section also relies a lot on quotations from the sources, rather than paraphrasing them and what each reviewer had to say about the film.
Regarding the topic of "Comprehensiveness", while I do agree that the sections on "Production" and "Release" should ideally be longer, back when I wrote the article, this was all of the sources I could find. Maybe there's more, but I didn't find them back in 2017. However, I disagree that the section on the sequel needs to be longer. It's not really necessary for article to place much emphasis on preceeding or succeeding installments.
Lastly, much of the "Production" section relies on primary sources or ones that may not necessarily be reliable. There's the blog of Renee O'Connor, that of Jerad S. Marantz, and the website Mental Floss. As for the "Reception" section, I'm not sure about the reliable of the sources regarding the film's premiere at Grauman's Chinese Theatre, and its theatrical release in Russia and Italy. Taking some of these things into account, I think the article should be delisted. It may be good enough for GA-status, but definitely not for FA, unless more sources are found to expand certain sections and replace the more low-quality / primary sources.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks for the ping, @Caleb Stanford! hard to believe it's been seven years since I copyedited this guy. iirc it was to bump it up from GA to FA status.
reviewing it now, the text could use some polish, and maybe another image or two. But for comprehensiveness and research quality, I don't think there's room for significant improvement. It's pretty solid length without going overboard, and being a sequel to an already bargain bin horror flick, most of its citeable coverage will be from the indie film scene, cult horror blogs, first-hand behind the scenes, etc. Unless it gets rereleased by a boutique label I don't see that changing.
I'm biased since I worked on it and love horror (with a special soft spot for dinky entries such as these) - so I'm inclined to let it ride as FA. but! i've also never worked too closely with article status qualifications, and am open to it returning to GA status if the community feels that it doesn't belong in the FA rotation.
hope that helps one way or the other. never done one of these before! Paradoxasauruser (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Originally when this article came up for Featured status I was against it due to it not being well-rounded. Since it has come under review, I did a little digging for more and alternate sources that can be used, while there is deffinately more that can be found here are some that can be added.

--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Like the original film, Boogeyman 2 was also panned by critics, with most critics" If the word "critics" being used twice close together in the first sentence of a main section is any indication, that is not a good sign. I will say this could easily be a GA with some CE. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 02:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include prose and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: "Broad" is not the word I would use. The article itself never should have passed FA to begin with, as it is missing significant chunks of information. I can do a little digging for more source, though I will be unable to implement them as that should rest upon the original nominee who brought it to Featured. Right now I am currently working on mentoring a user, and working on expanding my own articles for Featured so that will prevent me from doing more in depth research and implementation for this particular article. I will do as best I can.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is, even with any work I shall do on this article will be insufficient. Sourcing format has a lot to be desired and could use more work. I will try my hand at streamlining it tomorrow when I get some free time--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I see nothing wrong with the prose or the restricted use of media. The search for additional sources was underwhelming, indicating that it is a comprehensive summary of the available material and that better sources are not extant. The featured article criteria do not distinguish between major topics and bargain bucket trivia. Of its type, it would appear to meet the criteria. DrKay (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. If PanagiotisZois, the nominator, isn't comfortable with FA status, then that's enough to downgrade to "weak." Buuuuut I'm still not sold on basically any of the complaints about the article as-is, other than a general "perhaps it could be better with more secondary sources on development". Movie articles aren't meant to be a repository of every single scintilla of trivia that is to be found on a topic, and the suggested sources seem quite weak (a film opened in Italy? That's... most films in the era of international distribution.). Some close repetitions are unavoidable, and I don't see using the word "critics" twice as being an issue - could be argued it's clarity-by-repetition as to who we're talking about. If Paleface Jack wants to take a try and digging up more sources, by all means go for it, but the existing suggested links aren't selling me that major sources went unconsulted - none of them say anything interesting not already in the article. SnowFire (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, the film getting a theatrical release in Italy is notable because this is an American movie that received a direct-to-video release in its own country, but a theatrical one in foreign markets. Hardly the only film this has happened to, but still a rare occurrence. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist with the disclaimer that am a friend of Paleface Jack but have been following the FAR closely since it opened. The article is 1867 words long, but if you take away the lead and the plot section, neither of which have to be cited, then what are you left with...cut and paste direct quotes or slight rephrasing from Rotten Tomatoes reviews. Ceoil (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    DrKay has a good point re criteria; haven't resolved it in my head yet; its a real puzzle. Ceoil (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I find the "Reception" section to be unprofessionally written, failing FACR 1a), while high-quality reliable sources need to be used as per 1c), not just if they are available. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: Having looked over the article again, there are issues in terms of size. The "Production" section could be longer, but given the scarcity of sources, one could forgive that. But the "Reception" sections definitely needs work, as barely any of the sources used come from reliable publications; let alone high-quality ones. It may not take much to improve the article, but as it currently stands, it really is not up to FA standards. And seeing as the original nominator has no interest in revisiting this article, delisting it seems to be the only option going forward. PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Boogeyman_2/archive1&oldid=1280704889"