Contents

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Michael Myers (Halloween)/1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:46, 26 April 2024

Excessive usage of primary sources, aritcle isn't broad in coverage (lacking scholar sources, copy the article like Slender Man), unsourced statements, lack of Folkloric qualities or reception section, and the usage of some unreliable sources in the concept/creation section like Youtube and Reddit and primary sources in the popular culture section. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 03:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:

1. Excessive use of primary sources? Are you referring to the plot section being sourced to the films? If you're referring to interview books and documentaries, they would be the best sources for information pertaining to the creation of the actual character.

2. Broad coverage is defined as "main aspects of the topic". The main aspect of the topic would be the creation of the character and his impact on popular culture. The article covers those (the former in great depth). This is a GA article, not an FA article. The criteria for "broad" certainly didn't change between 2008 and now. What I can tell you from going through the history is that sometimes in 2009 some IP vandal successfully deleted a huge section of information and it was never caught.

3. What unsourced statements? The only unsourced part of the article is in the plot section, and it isn't technically required to have an in-line citation for a film summary. It's a fixable issue.

4. Lack of folkloric qualities and reception? I don't know what you mean by folkloric qualities. Michael is a film character, not an urban legend.

5. Youtube and Reddit were used for one source as confirmation of a Halloween film appearing in another film. the entire thing is removed because it's not relevant. That was a single instance for both Youtube and Reddit (as it was the same source). Your statement makes it seem like the article was riddled with the use of Youtube/Reddit pages.

If you're going to request a reassessment, you need to provide more specific issues and not vague statements that force people to guess at what you're referring to.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that my statement is kinda exaggerating, I'll redo again. Oh btw, I already raised my concern here [1] before, so I wouldn't even know that the IP removed a lot of content way back from 2009. So, if this article wasn't sent out to GAR does it mean that the content will never be restored? This is the problem with some Old GA articles being forgotten. I also disagree with "the criteria for broad certainly didn't change between 2008 and now", the article easily passed the GA process before unlike now. There are some sources doesn't have author's name that should be implemented. ref51, ref53 ,ref55, ref56, ref58 sources should be replaced into reliable, ref 57 dead source, and instead of using unreliable source like ref61 just remove it and add other merchandise instead with these sources [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. There are some recent sources that could potentially expand the article [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] and maybe this two also? [14] [15] Note: I understand your frustration, but I'm not here just to destroy the GA icon. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 04:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+ There were no mentions about the novelizations of Halloween: The Official Movie Novelization (2018), Taking Shape: Developing Halloween from Script to Scream (2019) and Halloween 3 - “Where the Hell is Michael Myers?”: A definitive history of horror’s most misunderstood film (2022). The lead should also be updated + the infobox image rationale should be improved. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 05:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue there are several statements in the article that are not backed up by their respective sources. The infobox lists several actors (Chris Durand, Brad Loree, Tyler Mane, etc.) who are not mentioned anywhere in the prose. Other infobox details like his "choice weapon". Some statements such as being seen in a commercial in Halloween III are unsourced. Halloween H20: 20 Years Later says it ignores the events of the first three films, but is that stated on the DVD? There are curious highlighted information about the differences between the novel and the book (i.e: Myere's having an erection) that just cites the book, but if this is a big deal or notable, we should have a source discussing the character variations from the novel and film. Some of the more specific video details sourced to dvds in the creation section have no time stamp, which is kind of expected nowadays in sourcing for this kind of material. The statement "Michael Myers is regarded as one of the most recognizable and most iconic horror villains, alongside..." is cited to just a dozens of "Top 10" or "Best---" lists, which isn't quite stating what the sources say. All the trivial mentions of him appearing on tv shows that cite the show itself are basically trivial and feels like a bulleted list written out as prose (Michael Myers is seen in this show. He's also been sold as prop from Spirit of Halloween. Michael appears in...") we can't list every piece of outside media citing Michael, so why hunt and choose? I would agree with Greenish Pickle that there is no reception section and it's mostly down to top 10 lists that summarize "oh he's one of the most iconic of all time", which, no matter how many lists you find, doesn't quite state that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at work, but when I have time I'll go through the article line by line and see what's there. I've only monitored the page for basic vandalism (which, obviously, I didn't do a good job of back in 2009) and haven't paid that much attention to what's been added over the years. That said, "broad coverage" is NOT "comprehensive coverage", which is an FA criteria. So, listing things that aren't used in the article doesn't mean that it isn't broad in its coverage. There doesn't need to be a source in the info box for actors that have portrayed the role, as basic IMDB credits have always been accepted for essentially demographic information about a film. Again, I'll go through it line by line to see what doesn't make sense (I'm not sure why someone put anything about an erection in there for example, but random editors will be random editors).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]