Talk:The Babadook/GA1

GA Review

The 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.

---

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 18:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Images are appropriately tagged; I'm assuming good faith on File:Lon Chaney London After Midnight Vampire Bat Cape.jpg because the eBay link is dead, though in a few months it'll be moot anyway since it would become PD in the New Year. Earwig finds an overlap with this page but looking at the page history that appears to have been copied from Wikipedia in 2016. Twitter and Youtube are in the sources but are OK for what they're used for.

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • californiareporter.com -- The site is dead and I can't find any active links in archive.org that might help.
    • removed - not needed as another source used for same statement. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • flickeringmyth.com -- appears to be a blog
    • This is a tricky one, as it is an actual interview with the director. I will come back to this one or see if I can find a better source where she discusses the same/similar things.Arcahaeoindris (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

      Per WP:ABOUTSELF we can probably use this for the director's quoted words, but another source would be preferable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

      • So I have added additional references from NPR and ScreenRant next to this source as they support the same statements. I haven't removed the source in question if WP:ABOUTSELF supports it staying.
  • horror-movies.ca
    • Agreed - removed this, replaced with reviews in The Guardian and Variety.
  • cinephilefix.com -- you list this as a WordPress site; per WP:RS/PS WordPress is generally unreliable. is the author a subject-matter expert, i.e. a professional film critic with a track record? I see you describe him as "Egyptian national film critic" but I don't see evidence of that.
    • agreed - removed. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• The lead should be a summary of the body, which means everything in the lead should also be in the body, but there's no mention of it being a cult film in the body.
  • Moved this statement and source to the body as don't think it is deserving of due weight in lead.

    Can you check through the lead to make sure everything in it is in the body? E.g. Moliere's role as producer is not mentioned in the body. Looking through the lead I think everything else is covered. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

    • Have added a note about Moliere as producer in "box office" as this was the only substantive ref I could find on him that would fit in as prose. Otherwise everything in lead is covered.

• "nonetheless was universally acclaimed": a review site placing the film in its "universal acclaim" score, as Metacritic did, isn't the same thing as universal acclaim.
  • This wording no longer appears in the article except for the Metacritic citation.
• "encouraging him with the weapons he makes": this can't be the intended meaning -- as written it says she uses the weapons to encourage him.
  • shifted to "encouraging him with building his weapons".
• Suggest linking Two Twisted.
  • done. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• "A script reading was not done due to Noah Wiseman's age at the time, six years old, and Kent focused on bonding, playing games and lots of time spent with the actors in which they became more familiar with one another": suggest "A script reading was not done since Noah Wiseman was only six years old at the time, and Kent focused instead on bonding, playing games and lots of time spent with the actors so they could become more familiar with one another".
  • done.
• " She was also influenced by pre-1950s B-grade horror films, as it was "very theatrical", in addition to being "visually beautiful and terrifying"." What does "it" refer to in the two clauses here? The subject (films) is plural.
  • shifted to "they were" to be clearer. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• The film's gross is given as of 2015; of course this is unlikely to have changed much, but I thought I'd check to see if the date can be updated.
  • It hasn't changed; accessed same source and updated access date.
• There is an uncited sentence in the "Box office" section.
  • rectified this; found sources where I could and removed unsourced statements.
• "The Babadook was one of the best reviewed films of 2014": it's ok to start a paragraph in the reception section with a summary comment, but this is a strong enough statement we would need a source that specifically says this.
  • Shifted to "best reviewed horror film of 2014" with citation from RT: https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/best-movies-2014-horror/
• Much of the "Accolades" section is unsourced.
  • Added sources for all and formatted table accordingly.

Spotchecks:

• FN 48 cites "The social media response became so strong that theatres in Los Angeles took the opportunity to hold screenings of the film for charity." Verified.
• FN 25 cites "The special edition features Kent's short film, Monster, and the comic novel, Creating the Book, by Juhasz." "Comic novel" is wrong; surely -- isn't this a video piece about creating the popup?
  • changed to "behind-the-scenes video" as per source.
• FN 11 cites "The film's final colour scheme was achieved without the use of gels on the camera lenses or any alterations during the post-filming stage". The source has "The colour scheme – everything is a shade of burgundy, blue or black through to white – was achieved in the flesh, with no gels on the camera lens or alterations post-filming." This is fairly close but this sort of phrase is very difficult to paraphrase; I think this is just about OK.
• FN 13 cites "A script reading was not done due to Noah Wiseman's age at the time, six years old, and Kent focused on bonding, playing games and lots of time spent with the actors in which they became more familiar with one another. Pre-production occurred in Adelaide and lasted three weeks and, during this time, Kent conveyed a "kiddie" version of the narrative to Wiseman". I can't find a working link for this at the Internet Archive. That doesn't mean it fails verification but if you can find a link it would be best.
  • Took some scouring but found it! here

    Looks like that only covers the last sentence? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

    • Thanks for checking - have added this source to cover the first sentence.

• FN 10 cites 'In terms of the characters, Kent said that it was important that both characters are loving and lovable, so that "we [audience] really feel for them"—Kent wanted to portray human relationships in a positive light.' Verified, but the quote is slightly inaccurate -- she says "felt", so for the tense in our article you'd have to make it "we [audience] really [feel]" which would be very ugly. How about using the whole quote -- 'It was really important for me that they were loving, and loveable people. I don’t mean likeable – I mean that we really felt for them.'?
  • sure - done.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Arcahaeoindris, just checking you're planning to work on this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: yes I am! Thank you for the review - I will take a look when I can to address these. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: thanks for your responses and review - I have now responded to all of the above that looked like they needed a response. Let me know if more needed. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Everything above is addressed except the query re horror-movies.ca's reliability. Since there were a couple of spotcheck issues I've done another couple:

• FN 12 cites "Kent used stop-motion effects for the monster and a large amount of smoothing was completed in post-production. Kent explained to the Empire publication: "There's been some criticism of the lo-fi approach of the effects, and that makes me laugh because it was always intentional. I wanted the film to be all in camera." Verified.
• FN 28 cites "The special edition features Kent's short film, Monster, and behind the scenes feature Creating the Book by Juhasz." Verified.
• FN 42 cites 'After seeing the film at the 2014 Stanley Film Festival, Flay Otters wrote on the HorrorMovies.ca fan site: "This is a film that mixes strong-minded storytelling with a clear dedication to craft ... It is mature and patient and it is, without a doubt, one of the best horror films this year."'

All are OK, so the source issue is the only thing left. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I realised I missed horrorfilm.ca point after I responded. Now addressed above. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks good; passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.