This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Does anyone think we should change the poster, which is for promotion, to a poster distributed to theatres with the film? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:57 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I recollect seeing more appropiate versions of the poster with two cut off fingers in theatres around where i live. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:30 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Not too much work, just a few quibbles. Made a few copy-edits myself as I went through. "topped charts its first week selling more than 3 million units" -> add either a comma or an em-dash after "week", the sentence as is flows for too long without pause. Your call which you'd prefer. I'm not keen on "Gus's neck" - I'd prefer to drop the extra s, but MOS doesn't come down on either side of that issue. Again, up to you at the end of the day. Not sure about the "Cast" section - it's not really adding anything since the cast are explained in the plot. Perhaps padding it a little with information from the production-related sections would give it a sense of purpose but as is it seems a bit redundant, especially with the two "see also" links. Thinking the same with the "Crew" section, too. It's less necessary since it's definitely covered in direct prose. When listing writers for the soundtrack, just use "Piped surname; piped surname; piped surname" as the format, rather than full names all on separate lines. "and that both films are "more clever and revolting"" -> Both films are more clever than what? I don't really think the awards table needs a collapsible cell, to be honest. Separate the names by semi-colons instead of line breaks and just let it wrap. The article body makes no mention of this being Hoffman's last release, though it's present and cited in the lead. Bung it in the main body and move the citation there.
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Images are fine. All used well and the two non-free files have suitable fair use rationales appended.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Just gonna hold this one while the crit 1 issues listed are seen to, but that shouldn't involve an awful lot of work. Apart from that we're pretty much good to go.
What if the soundtrack writers don't have a wiki link? I didn't know we were supposed to only include last names. About the award table, can you zap that code, I didn't put it there and I'm not sure how to safely remove it. Working on the rest. Thanks. —MikeAllen03:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A red link is fine, they've obviously done enough work to be notable, just not enough to attract article-creation levels of attention. Doesn't have to be surname only, but do keep the line breaks out - for instance, "Dave Buckner; Tobin Esperance; Jerry Horton; Jacoby Shaddix" or "Buckner; Esperance; Horton; Shaddix" are both fine. Line breaks, even with the two-tone table, make it a little confusing to break up the credits for each song from the list. I was about to gank the collapsed cell but I've been beaten to it. GRAPPLEX16:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much ready to pass this, but there's still a 1A issue I'd like to see resolved. In the "Critical reviews" section, we've got the following - "Gregory Kirschling of Entertainment Weekly gave the film a B minus saying, "Saw II is just barely a better B flick than Saw" and that both films are "more clever and revolting"". Still don't know what "both" films are meant to be "more clever and revolting" than, which leaves this seeming like an unfinished sentence. I think that's really the only issue left, so I'm going to pass this now and let you resolve it when you get a chance. Well done on the article. GRAPPLEX00:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Saw II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
