Talk:Ted the Caver
![]() | Ted the Caver was nominated as a Language and literature good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 9, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on June 5, 2005. The result of the discussion was delete. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
*added info on supernatural being in story desc.
editTitle. Judasamongus (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- huuhhuuhuhuhuhuhuhuhhuuhuuhhuhuuuhuuhuhhuhuhuhuuhuhhu 149.19.40.91 (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Digital Storytelling
editThis article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Judasamongus (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Judasamongus (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
possible reference, but paywalled so I can't see a mention
edithttps://intellectdiscover.com/content/journals/10.1386/host.9.2.151_2 WritingAboutCreepypastas (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
GA Review
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Ted the Caver/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: WritingAboutCreepypastas (talk · contribs) 10:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 05:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Comments
editHi WritingAboutCreepypastas, I'm happy to review this! At first glance it looks like an impressively thorough article for the topic, and I look forward to improving it together. For very small edits I usually prefer to make them myself, though you are of course always welcome to revert or change anything I edit. I'll note bigger suggests in the list below. (I think signing each one will make it easier for you to use the "reply" feature if you want.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's not required for the article to have images, but I think they would be nice: could you find a cave image that relates to the story? Or maybe an image of an angelfire web page to illustrate the part that talks about the rudimentary web design? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Done Nice find for this! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Having looked more closely at the prose, I think every individual paragraph in the "Background" and "Analysis and legacy" sections is well-written, but the key topics (e.g., creepypasta) feel repetitive because they are mentioned in more than one place, even though you add useful new details in each place. I suggest reorganizing a little, by creating more subsections. For example, I could see this info working with what a "publication" section (for the details about angelfire) and a "reception" section with subsections for "authenticity," "creepypasta," and "real-time updates". Or maybe keep the internet-history stuff in "background" but break down "reception" and "major themes"... whatever seems to you like a natural way to cluster these key topics. (For inspiration, maybe check out how I approached this with Beachy Head (poem).) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- On the source check, I'm seeing a little close paraphrasing which should be addressed. Some of this might naturally clear up when grouping information more into sub-points, as discussed above. The bullets below list the close paraphrasing I've found. (Also, a ping since I forgot last time: WritingAboutCreepypastas) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
He cited the unsettling setting inhabited by a supernatural entity, the "obsessed narrator" who nevertheless continues to return to the danger, and an ambiguous ending implying the danger's continued existence.
In using them, "Ted the Caver" takes the horror trope of "found document" or "found footage" stories and modifies them for a digital context
-- this probably shouldn't be cited to just p 79 because its kind of splicing a statement on that page with one from earlierit could not convey the source material's psychological tension and had an ineffectual twist
somehow feels like close paraphrasing while also kind of changing the meaning of the original[the] twist sucked a lot of the psychological tension from the plot
. This review was pretty detailed with a number of interesting points.- As an example of how to summarize rather than paraphrase, I might replace the sentence about this review with something like "Padraig Cotter, reviewing for Screen Rant, said the film fell short of its source material. Despite decent acting and production values, the new twist ending undermined the slow-build horror and eerie ambiguity that he appreciated from the original creepypasta." (Feel free to use that if you like it.)
- I think it's just those three, actually, that really need to be addressed. In all other respects the source check looks good -- the Crawford piece is a great find and all the sources I read were appropriate supports for the cited sentences. For the GA pass, then, what's really required is addressing that close paraphrasing, and then I recommend but won't require some kind of "refinement" pass for the structure/slow of paragraphs. Nice work! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Adaptations
editCan we mention the youtube series adaptation alongside the movie adaptation that's already in the article? Wanted to ask first in case for some reason we deem a movie-length adaptation on youtube as "not notable" whereas a movie adaptation proper is "notable". Note that both of these adaptation projects are independent (as was the original text!)
Disclaimer, am just a fan of the youtube adaptation, yet I hope I can say without bias that it's a significant enough project for inclusion. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)