Talk:Leprechaun (film)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs) 01:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   I'm aware that some critics noted the issues with plot. But there are some things confusing for me here.

• "Dan O'Grady returns to his home in North Dakota from a trip to Ireland, telling his wife that he captured a leprechaun and thus acquired his pot of gold. After burying the gold, O'Grady discovers that the evil leprechaun has followed him home and murdered his wife." So did he actually capture one? Or did the one he capture escape and went on a killing spree?
• Maybe explain a bit how the four-leaf clover works, does it suppress the leprechauns' powers? is it like a Christian cross against vampires?
• "A bag of one hundred gold pieces magically appears." I believe it explains a bit later that it's in front of Ozzie, but this should be clarified that it's showing up for Ozzie earlier, otherwise, it sounds like it's showing up with the group.
• What is Nathan Murphy's relation? I mean, are they at the farmhouse for a reason? caretakers? neighbours?
• "The leprechaun lures J. D. into a trap by imitating a cat, biting and injuring his hand." When and where is this happening, right after they decide to use the gold? back at the farm?
• "Alex and Ozzie visit a pawn shop to see if the gold is pure while Nathan and Tory are out. The leprechaun attacks the pawn shop owner, killing him by crushing his chest with a pogo stick. After killing a policeman, the leprechaun returns to the farmhouse, where he searches for his gold and shines every shoe. Everyone but J. D. returns home. Finding the house ransacked, Nathan checks outside, where he is injured by a bear trap set by the leprechaun." Might just saying "Meanwhile, Alex and Ozzie visit a pawn shot to see if the gold is pure.". So does the leprechaun show up again? was he chasing them? If it's not obvious, it should still just say he appears. I don't think we need to list every gag in the plot or wacky murder act as it's not really needed to understand the plot.
• "Everyone but J. D. returns home. Finding the house ransacked, Nathan checks outside, where he is injured by a bear trap set by the leprechaun. After shooting the leprechaun several times, they attempt to flee the farmhouse, but the truck has been sabotaged by the leprechaun." This part is confusing to me. What happened to JD? Is it just Nathan's house that is ransacked? We seem to be jumping ahead to a scene then where characters have weapons and start blasting at the leprechan, and then they are at the farmhouse. How was the truck sabotaged? Could they get it started or what was the problem with the truck?
• "specially-made car" Hard to imagine in the head a of a reader who hasn't seen the film what this means. Does the vehicle have a name? Or is it just another gag?
• "Tory escapes, while the bloodied body of O'Grady crashes through." Tory escapes the hospital? is he in the elevator still? O'Grady crashes through what?
• It should be clear where characters are and what they are doing. At the end, I was very confused to find out we were now discussing characters who were at the well.
  • I'll probably have to re-watch the film to authoritatively address these concerns. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I can't find the film on Netflix any more, so I had to go by memory. It's not the best-written plot summary ever, but I'm pretty sure I got the details right. I tried to clarify some of the scenes and address the above concerns. The action only takes place at three locations: The O'Grady farmhouse, the old well, and the nursing home. I think I made that more explicit. J. D. disappears from the film after he's bitten and taken to the hospital. Some of the scenes aren't really supposed to make sense. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Hmm. Well it certainly reads a bit better. I may tweak a few parts and ask for you to confirm that I'm still stating what happens in the plot, but we can figure this out. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Sounds good. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• "influenced by Critters" to "influenced by the film Critters"
  • Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• Link Terminator 2: Judgment Day and use it's full title. Don't want anyone to confuse it with that other Terminator 2. ;)
  • Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• In the production section, when referring to Warwick Davis and Jennifer Anniston the first times, use their full name again. Then you can still use "Davis" and "Anniston" again.
  • Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• "rage-filled direction", not sure what this means visually. Grotesque makes sense, but rage-filled is not so obvious. I'd say either re-phrase or drop it as grotesque gets the point across.
  • The make-up is designed look as if the character is enraged. I don't see a problem with it, but still done. I remember the source making a bigger deal of it than it does. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

• As a suggestion, I don't think we will have much more information about the cast or casting in this film soon. So, as a suggestion from WP:FILMCAST, I'd propose moving the list of actors in the cast to the prose of the film plot.
  • I dislike that style. There is no prohibition against having a separate cast list. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, if you were concerned before of certain sections not being as expanded as others, the cast section here will never be as detailed as that of Thor: The Dark World. As you stated before, it's unlikely people will expand on this article further, so if the cast can't be expanded, it's really only used for stub articles which WP:FILMCAST suggests. Do you think it's expandable? If not, why should we keep it? Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
      • I don't think it matters if it's never expanded, as that's not part of the GA criteria, and MOS:FILM does not say anything about a requirement to move cast members into the plot summary. Many non-stub film articles do it this way; I have personally created around 200 non-stub articles that use this format, and there are people who have created more articles than me who also use this format. The Terminator also does it this way, and it has very little more information than is here in this article. If you want me to put a little descriptive text after each name, like in that article, I can do so. But I am opposed to moving the cast list into the plot summary. I really dislike that style. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Per the infobox standards, the cast section should include all cast members on the posters credits. So just add Ken Olandt, Mark Holton, and Robert Hy Gorman.
  • Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• Per WP:INTEGRITY, I would use the Entertainment Weekly source at the end of each sentence, opposed to a paragraph. People will probably add and manipulate this article in the future, so it may be difficult to see what is, and what is not in the article.
  • There is no requirement to cite a source at the end of every sentence. If someone screws up the citations, I'll fix it. This is unlikely, as I'm the only one who edits this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• The information about the budget seems a bit shoe-horned in there. Perhaps movie it to the earlier part of the production section where they are discussing trimark and the "low budget" aspects of the shoot.
  • Yes, I never really got around to fixing that. Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Feel as though the reception section could be-written for a few reasons. I'd remove the Rotten Tomatoes source as saying it received bad reviews on it's original release suggests that rotten tomatoes backs this up. Which it doesn't as it has some retrospective reviews in it. Beyond that, It doesn't feel like the sentence flow together outside "this critic said this. this critic said that". Would you be able to find specific details what critics didn't like? (acting, tone, humor, length, production values, etc.). Even bad reviews sometimes have positive things to say too, so you might want to see if there were things like that. To see an example of what I'm talking about, examine the reception section of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990 film). I would also try to seperate contemporary reviews with retrospective ones.
  • No, I think the RT score should stay. This is pretty standard to report on film articles. I think a summarizing statement is good enough, but I can expand them a bit. It's already long and detailed, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
    • It's admittedly a bit raw, but I rewrote the reception. I think maybe I could run through it another time or two to make it flow better, but it's probably good enough for a GA. It doesn't have to be "brilliant" – just concise and grammatically correct. I'm a little worried that maybe I broke the "concise" rule by incorporating so much of the criticism, but the first version of the reception was too breezy. I can cut this down if necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
      • It's honestly only a bit bigger than the plot and production, so I'm happy with it, especially how it gives users more to read than a spew of hated it/loved it quotes. We could potentially expand the release section (which I've discussed elsewhere) with information about UK home video or even Australian home video releases. I'm thinking that the information about it's shown on St. Patrick's Day on some cable channels could be moved here. I've found this source expanding on it's St.Patrick's day viewings on SyFy. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
        • That makes sense. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Also, as for the Rotten Tomatoes note, I know this isn't a strict rule, but I'd suggest reading Wikipedia:Review_aggregators, and get back to me. I'd suggest leaving the Rotten Tomatoes link at the bottom, but removing it from the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
          • At the bottom sounds alright. I've seen other articles do that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

1. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

• I believe the date on the Sight & Sound article doesn't match the rest of the form, but otherwise they look strong.
  • You were the one who added it: diff. I will fix it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• For the Fangoria source, change the capital letters to regular formatting (i.e: from "cover art: "LEPRECHAUN: THE COMPLETE MOVIE COLLECTION" Blu-ray set" to "cover art: "Leprechaun: The Complete Movie Collection" Blu-ray set".
  • Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• "Leprechaun became the first theatrically released film to be produced by Trimark". Not exactly what the EW article says, which states that "Leprechaun was our first movie that we actually produced in-house that went out theatrically." I believe the article states other films they distributed others, so this should be clarified.
  • Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• On Davis's thought on the shooting location being blashphemous, does he expand on it at all? It would be interesting to hear more about his thoughts.
  • Well, not really, no. There are sardonic observations, but many of them are not specifically related to the film itself. Warwick describes an adventure where he drove Gabe Bartalos' car to town and back using improved stilts, for example. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• The EW article doesn't really specific that the first film became a cult film, but that the series as a whole seems to have a following. I'd perhaps swap the information about the cult film and expand on information in the article that Leprechaun had one theatrical sequel (Leprechaun 2) and the other direct to video films, and maybe even Davis's twitter comments about how people wanted sequels etc.
  • Well... true, EW isn't explicit about being a cult film. I can put in a better source. I think the other information belongs in the article about the franchise or the remake itself. It's not all that related to this film specifically. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I checked out a few other GAs. The Terminator doesn't really expand on the sequels at all, but Alien does. Hmm. I'm not really sure we have a whole lot to say about the film series, which leads me to say that we should follow The Terminator's example rather Alien's. If the EW source were more explicit about a few things, I think that would make this easier, but it doesn't even list which films were theatrical and which were direct-to-video. That's another thing that makes me think maybe it's just not so important to mention. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
      • You'll probably hate me for this, but unless we can specific details that go beyond statements like "it's become a cult film", I don't think we should include it. The term cult film, as discussed on it's own wikipedia page has multiple meanings to readers and there's no real specific information on what it means to be a cult film. I liked how the Entertainment Weekly article actually discussed screenings of the series and how it they had sold out at the theater it was showing, because it gives the statement weight. Otherwise, it seems a bit tossed off. I'd probably suggest removing it unless we can find more information specifically related to this film. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Eh, well, I've said similar things about labeling cult films in the past. I suppose I shouldn't be so easy-going on films that I consider to be cult films. This came up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 61#"Cult!", but MOS:FILM was not modified. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• The Guardian link specifically lists the film as one of the authors favourites, not specifically her own "top ten" so this may misconstrue what the article is referring too.
  • Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Looking at this statement again, it doesn't give a lot of weight. The author just says it's a favourite, but she just appears to be a Guardian writer who doesn't even seem to work predominantly in the film articles for the Guardian nor does she really say much beyond describing plot bits and pieces. Are there any other retrospective reviews we can have here? Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure I understand your objection. It's an article published in a reliable source by a professional journalist. It does not seem to fail any of the GA criteria or relevant content policies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Stating that the film is watched on St.Patrick's day is pretty vague. By whom? Is there some annual event? Does a prominent television network show it often? The article doesn't really state that.
  • Done; clarified that it was broadcast on Syfy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
    • See my statement above concerning moving the statement about St.Patrick's day showings. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

1. B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   For the most part yes, but parts of the infobox are not mentioned in the prose (specifically, producer, cinematographer, film editor, and the release date). All of which can be verified by The American Film Institute]. I'd suggest including the release/premiere dates in the prose where they can be sourced, but the others I'm okay with them having them sourced in the infobox for a GA.

   I can explicitly cite the release date, but the rest of the infobox does not need to be cited. Like any other film article, it's sourced to the film's credits, a primary source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

   Honestly, with these types of films (especially the Italian articles which I've been working on) there are so many fake credits, fake names, aliases used etc. that I really feel like things in the infobox should be either mentioned in the article, or sourced. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   I would remove or re-phrase the "Despite the negative reviews, Leprechaun and its sequels have become cult films." Cult films are not generally developed with influence critics as films that are praised by critics (such as Blue Velvet) can still go on to be cult films.

   Done; the sources don't link it's cult status to the reception, but they are often related. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

   See above statement regarding the films cult status. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Yes, but I still think more information about sequels, which cast members/staff from the first film returned at least for the second film help flesh out information.

   We already have an article on the franchise. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

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

   Perhaps include and image of Warwick or Anniston in the production? There are a few in the commons. Also, it's minor but the poster image says it's either a dvd cover or poster, where it's obviously a poster. That could be updated.

   Mmm. Maybe I'll look for a good pic to include. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

   I might suggest this one below, as it even has him signing some Leprechaun related material.

Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

1. B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Posters seems fine, otherwise, see above.

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Article seems strong and that EW article is a life saver going into production details about the films. I'd suggest focusing on organizing the plot and reception which are the only really big issues I had. After a week, we can see where the article stands.

   As a note, I didn't nominate the article, but I'm responsible for the vast majority of the content. This probably isn't going to get passed unless I do it. Nobody else edits this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

   Great work! The plot seems a lot better as does the reception section. I've noted a few other sections that I think could use a bit of a clean-up and asked for your take elsewhere. I'll give the article more time as well as I can see work is being done. I look forward to hearing your response! Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• @NinjaRobotPirate:, I've gone through the article a bit and added some information and moved it around and tried to clarify some of my earlier statements. Is there anything you still plan to tackle with the article? Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• My only suggestion now might be to expand the lead a bit to take in a bit more information. It does a good job of covering the article, but it seems a bit small for the current length. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• OK, I can expand the lead a bit. I would have liked to include a few more details, but the sourcing just isn't there for them. The film is too old and obscure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• The lead is still admittedly a bit short, but there's not a whole lot to really add. I could mention more production details, but those tend not to be described extensively in film GAs. Normally, there'd be mention of awards and the film's legacy, but, well, this is Leprechaun. It would have been nice to find an in-depth source that discusses the film's cult following, but most sources discuss it in terms of the film series, not specifically this film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

True. The only thing that I think could be used eventually to expand the article may be the audio commentary tracks from the home video releases, but for now, i think this is a solid pass. Great work on a fan with a fanbase, even if it's not the critics. Passed! Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)