Talk:Let's Scare Jessica to Death

Start class

This article only needs a cast section and a little more information in the other sections to reach start class. --Nehrams2020 02:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lets scare jessica to death.jpg

Image:Lets scare jessica to death.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Casting Notes Sidebar

I'm not sure how to go about updating the writers' names, but the ones listed here are not the ones listed in the movie's credits. Should list Ralph Rose and Norman Jonas...Snyrt (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think those were fake names. 166.182.82.53 (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Expansion

This article is poorly written and developed and needs to be expanded. The article consists mostly of an overlong plot summary which should be toned down to fit Wikipiedia's guidelines. Other sections in the article are underdeveloped and need to be expanded in more detail. Some sections are unsourced and need to be given proper citations as well. The reception section is also underdeveloped and needs reviews from notable critics added to it. All of these changes and additions need to occur in order for this article to meet Wikipiedia's standards of a well developed and properly sourced article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've last checked up on this article, and its seem some expansion was done to it. However, the production section is still incomplete, and needs to be expanded in more detail. The Development sub-section seems incomplete and should be expanded upon in far more detail than what it currently has, this also extends to the filming section as well. There should also be information on the film's casting added as well. The release section also seems kind of short and more information on it's theatrical run, including its box office grossing should be added.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The Portrait In The Attic

Not sure if it's worthy of mention or just trivia … but , the portrait in the attic of The Bishop Family , features "Jessica" & "Duncan" as the parents. 75.104.174.153 (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

No 166.182.82.53 (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The GA Nomination

PLEASE NOTE: This is not necessarily a review for this article's GA nomination so much as it is a couple of suggestions. Looking over the article, it seems very good. My ONLY suggestions are adding relevant images to the body of the article (namely the production and release sections). That way the reader has some sort of visual reference. If there is any more information that can be added to the film's production section then it should be added. Otherwise, this article is looking pretty good.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Let's Scare Jessica to Death/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Abryn (talk · contribs) 23:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• I noticed that the budget is mentioned in the infobox, but nowhere in the article itself.
• I also notice that there are actors listed who do not have any details about the casting process and are not mentioned in the Casting section outside of the box. Are there any details on the casting of Heyman, O'Connor, Corbett, or Mason?
• I also noticed other information in the infobox, namely the editor and production company (which I assume is based on this movie, which would be an interesting tidbit to mention).
• Is there anymore information on box office returns or home video sales, aside from the early ones?
• I noticed that there is no release date for the Blu-ray release listed. Is there a specific date that can be listed on the article?
• I think it's worth mentioning that it is slated for a Blu-ray release in the lead, or perhaps a single sentence mentioning the home video formats on which it has been released.
• I think the biggest issue, but not remotely insurmountable, is that a lot of the Reception section could be paraphrased better rather than taking the quotes wholesale.

Otherwise it's a very good article, interesting read too. I'll be checking on sources and the like soon so I can give a thorough, final review (pending any changes of course). - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 00:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Abryn: I've addressed several of your concerns above (budget and production company being included in prose, home video history in lead, date of upcoming Blu-ray, trimming quotes from reviews), but I'm at a loss for the additional casting information and box office results--these are two areas where I've been unable to find sufficient information. I've scoured articles via Newspapers.com and only found the opening week figure that is included in the infobox. --Drown Soda (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The casting is a bit iffy, and I personally would suggest dropping the box entirely. I won't fail based on that though, everything else looks solid. Nice job with the article. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 00:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Abryn:, thanks a bunch—it turns out the stars somehow aligned, and I found a book source (Hancock on Hancock) from 2018 which profiles the director, and was able to cull some pieces of information about how the film was cast (specifically the supporting actors). I've added that information to the casting section, and it does fill out the article much better. Thanks again! --Drown Soda (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)