Talk:The Rocky Horror Picture Show/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Queenieacoustic (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Plot

1. "In a scene inspired by the classic Frankenstein films, his creation, Rocky Horror, is brought to life." No ref.

Production

1. How is ref 1 reliable?
2. Ref 2 seems to be written by a student of Murdoch University. How is it reliable?
3. What is "Rocky's birth"?
4. The fourth paragraph has no ref.
5. How is ref 5 reliable?
6. Ref 6 is dead.
7. Since ref 5 and 6 are both either not reliable or dead, the entire fifth paragraph is considered original research.
8. "Filming took place during autumn, which made conditions harsh. During filming, Sarandon fell ill with pneumonia; she recovered after a few days." None of this information is given in any of the refs given the paragraph (refs 8 and 9).
9. "In the stage productions, actors generally did their own make-up" This information is not given in the ref. (ref 10) Besides, IMDB should only be used to reference cast members.
10. "Production stills were taken by 1970s rock photographer Mick Rock, who has published many calendars and photo books from his Rocky Horror work." No ref given.

Release

1. Ref 11 is a fan site. Not reliable.
2. Again, IMDB is only considered reliable when referencing which cast members were in the film.
3. Ref 14. IMDB.
4. Ref 15 is a fan site.

Reception

1. Since the second paragraph only uses reference 3, you only need to put the ref at the end of the paragraph.
2. Ref 18 is IMDB.
3. Ref 20 is... you probably already know.

Sequels and scripts

1. A majority of the first paragraph has no ref.

Music

1. Ref 23 and 24 are blogs, which are not considered reliable.

Lead

1. "The film is a parody of B-movie, science fiction and horror films of the late 1940's through early 1970s." Not seen anywhere else in the article, and not sourced in the lead.
2. "The film introduces Tim Curry" What do you mean by this?
3. "In 2005, the film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being 'culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant'." Not seen anywhere else in the article, and not sourced.

In conclusion

Although the prose is mostly decent (I noticed a couple of typos), several big chunks of texts are without reference and 12 of 32 of the article's references are either unreliable or dead. That's just not acceptable for a GA. Since the article needs a lot of work, I'm failing it so that it can be reworked. Good luck! Queenieacoustic (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)