Talk:The Haunting in Connecticut/GA1

GA Review

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

• Lead: Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should be a concise overview of the article body. Currently there is only one basic sentence.
• Production: There is no section about the film's production. Where was it filmed? What was the writing process like? How did they create the effects for ectoplasm?
• Critical reception: There could be more samples of reviews, and outside of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, avoid using a single review to make a blanket statement about all critics. For example, The Charlotte Observer credited the acting, but this does not mean other reviews did.
• Box office: "Domestic" will mean the United States and Canada. Also, how much did the film make total in these combined territories? Mention that figure and mention the figure from "other territories" and provide the worldwide total.
• External links: Per WP:EL, there should be a limited number of external links in this section. As many links as possible should be implemented in the article body and others removed.

Overall, the article is a reasonable start, but I think it falls short of Good Article standard mainly due to lack of content. More research could be done to flesh out the article in all quarters. I can put the article on hold for improvements to be made, but I think there is too much to be done for a hold. Does the primary editor believe he/she can do the work? Please look at Good Articles Doomsday (film) and Vampyr for an idea of how much a Good Article should cover.

Reviewer: Erik (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Due to lack of followup of the above points, I am failing this Good Article nomination. Erik (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have addressed the majority of the issues listed in the initial review, and the article should be conversant enough to satisfy the criteria for Good Article status. bwmcmaste (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This article has a page format issue which I had corrected with my edit. Unfortunately the latest edits have reverted my edit leaving the quote box hanging on the right between two sections viewing in Firefox. The section on the DVD release makes no sense datewise placed before the sections on Critical Reception and Box Office. I only edited this article on a chance encounter and do not wish to get further involved, but I would not support this as a Good Article in its current state.Bill Oversixty (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)