Talk:Carrie (2002 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ribbet32 (talk · contribs) 03:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

1a Awkward lede sentence- how about "In the story, Carrie White, a shy girl who is harassed by her schoolmates, disappears and a series of flashbacks reveals what has happened to her"? What's the point of leading the third para a rehashed "A remake of the 1976 film"? "the film came in for criticism" is awkward. Plot opens with passive tense, instead of "Police interview several people". No "I" or "We" in academic writing. Production- "caused him disappointment" or "disappointed him"? What is meant by "another Carrie"? "killing 'someone who is victimized her entire life' can be clarified to mean having a fictional character (Carrie) die. Fuller quote just appears randomly in the section, with no explanation as to why it was placed in that spot. 1b Suggest formatting the cast list to an infobox alongside Production per WP:CASTLIST. ~~WP:ENGVAR issue- "capitalize" is a US spelling, but intro uses UK spelling.~~

Verifiable with no original research

~~Amazon.com is an online business, not a source. Who published ref 22? Is World Cat a reliable source?~~

~~Full source review pending; infobox tags need addressing.~~

Broad in its coverage:

Aftermath- Surely critics had some comparisons (good or bad) between the TV movie and Carrie (2013 film)? What did Kimberly Peirce and/or Lawrence D. Cohen and/or Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa say about the TV movie?

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

4. Seems accurate and relatively balanced.

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

5. No edit wars.

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6. Poster is attributed.

6 review updated: Other images are free. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ribbet32, thanks for the review. I rewrote the plot sentence. I don't think it is a rehash because it was not especifically mentioned that it was a remake (but maybe it fits better in the second para about production; what do you think?). Changed "the film came in for criticism" with "the film was criticized". Removed the "We" bit and reworded as it was before the requested copyedit. Changed to "disappointed him". I can assume that "another Carrie" is someone else with the same powers... but in the source it's not clear at all, so I prefer to avoid some kind of original research. I thought it was pretty clear, but nevertheless used "character" to further clarify it. Repositioned the quote about Carrie's characterization. UK spelling? I don't see it. Amazon is of course a business but it's still a source (they're not dichotomous attributes, at least I think so) – also, it's only being used to confirm a release date. WorldCat is an Internet catalog and it is only used for technical infomration on the article. About the "Aftermath", I not sure it's totally inside the scope, but anyway I'll need some time to research about it. Thanks again, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabriel Yuji::

~~"another Carrie" should be in quotation marks, then.~~

Also, and I know how hard this stuff can be to dig up- any word on which school this was shot at, or if it was shot in a studio?

2013: interview with Pierce and some insight as to why execs wanted 2013: "Sure, “Carrie” had been revisited before – in a contrived 1999 sort-of sequel, “The Rage: Carrie 2,” and an equally lacking 2002 TV adaptation. But in 2013, a redo offered an opportunity to take a freshly cutting look at the dangers of bullying, an issue now very much on the nation’s social-crisis radar." Review: "However, the remake is less faithful to the book than was the 2002 television version"

~~Quote block still needs context. Maybe stick in front "Fuller gave his take on the character:"~~

~~Rehash: "the first being the 1976 version" and then a few lines down "A remake of the 1976 film"~~ Ribbet32 (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ribbet32:

Quoted now.

I'll try to find it.

Thanks. Give me sometime and I incorporate it.

Tried something.

I didn't think it was a rehash because the first mention is about it being the second adaptation of the novel, but no relation is established between this film and the 1976 film (except for the source material). It could be a remake or not. Anyway, I changed it.

Also, added the publisher for ref #21 and #22. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabriel Yuji::Note Gremlins was defeatured for Amazon links. The Washington Post is unquestionably a better source for an August 2003 MGM DVD release, with the added detail that it was on VHS; DVD Talk adds the specific August date. You call World Cat an online database, but so is IMDb, and we can't use it.

Plot is a little on the long side and feels silly in places. "At her hallway locker, as Carrie gathers her belongings to leave school, she is the victim of a practical joke" violates WP:PLOTSUM. " telekinetic mayhem ensues" is sitcom language. "a witch for destroying the whole town" should just be "a witch". Ribbet32 (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for these sources! Replaced Amazon and WorldCat. Also, it was a little useful on reception.

It's within the WP:FILMPLOT range of 400–700 words (618, according to WordCounter) – it should also be considered it's more than two hours long. Could you be more specific on how that sentence violates PLOTSUM?; it's doesn't even describe the joke itself. Changed the other two sentences. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On hold Source review generally held up, but instances of close paraphrasing needs rewording: "The series would also feature Carrie and Sue traveling to help other people with telekinetic abilities", "considered the idea of transferring Carrie's powers to Sue" Ribbet32 (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed infobox tags and paraphrased the mentioned sentences. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About the location, according to Set-Jetter it was filmed it the Point Grey Secondary. However, the source and the information were removed from the article because the addition was considered to be a spam (see: [1]). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no RS it's not vital. But I forgot to mention that it's Blu-ray, not "Blu-Ray". Ribbet32 (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ribbet32: Fixed "Blu-ray". About the cast, WP:FILMCAST gives some different options; the bulleted list or the infobox. As there is no "Casting" or any detailed information on the cast, I think the current status is enough and not a GA issue. And about the 2013 film, I don't think it's really worth mentioning. It's not a consequence of the 2002 film and neither their fictional story or real-world production are connected (except for the fact they adapt the same novel, which may be interesting to note in the novel article). I mean, the first source simply says bullying is an issue in 2013 but how this relates to this film? and to say that this film is more faithful to the novel is more related to the novel than to this film. I've searched for more sources and read through the references in Carrie (2013_film)#Production, but found nothing significant except for blabbering like "ah, there was also this remake in 2002". Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabriel Yuji: The Cast list is awful, like so many others on Wikipedia, and at least adding a reference to it would help, but I'm willing to let the formatting (or lack thereof) slide. The fact that another film followed this one seems like a gap though. And the references I provided should make it easy for you "A remake went forward in 2013 after producers felt the 2002 version did not capture modern bullying. X critic compared the two versions and said 2002 was more faithful." Ribbet32 (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ribbet32: In the case of this article, the infobox-style cast would be awful too, in my opinion, because it's a long list and it would conflict with the actual infobox (also, it would feel displaced because production doesn't talk about casting) (see). Anyway, added the bit about the 2013 remake, though I do think it's very weak. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]