Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror/Collaboration/2010

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

This article is one of the most influential horror films of all time. The article, although improved, has failed several FA nominations, there is still work to be done, and I believe we can and should bring this article up to featured status. EclipseSSD (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. EclipseSSD (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
2. hornoir (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
3.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
4. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Sareini (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Someoneanother 05:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• While I fully support this nomination, since it is an extremely influential horror film, I have no new information to provide for the article. I would, on the other hand, be happy to help with grammar, spelling, organization, etc. It would be great to see this film make it to FA status. hornoir (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Yeah, I don't think there is much more new information to provide the article with. Mainly just organization and grammar stuff. I do think the lead section needs to be rewritten, though I'm not the best person to do that sort of thing. Other than that, I'll see if I can find other stuff for the article, and hopefully it'll become a FA. --EclipseSSD (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Got my support as well. I've been on-n-off helping Eclipse with this article as they have been bringing it dangerously close to FA status ;). If this one is accepted then I'll try and use some of my university library access to grab some more offline sources.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I will try to see what other offline sources can be used to improve this article. Since I haven't actually seen the film, I may be able to ask clarifying questions so readers who have not seen the film can understand this article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Reading through the article I can't see that much that I could potentially add to it, since it already seems to be pretty comprehensive, but I can look through my books and see if there's anything that could be added to it as well. Sareini (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Though it's a very (very) worthy article it's a little overwhelming - it's already above my level of ability so the only support on offer is moral. Don't throw a brick, but considering the project has so little activity would it not be better to select something which the average contributor could actually do something with? That said if you all think you can manage it then it would certainly make an excellent FA for the project. Someoneanother 15:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• • It really depends on what your forte is. The average editor might still be a damn good copy editor, and that is one thing that has plagued this article in past reviews. Plus, we have a lot of college editors, who have access to University libraries, and those libraries tend to differ from university to university (e.g. Erik often comes across items that I never see when I do my searches, because each university might subscribe to some engines that another one might not). So, I think it will always be about finding your niche with editing. Sometimes it's also good to start on something harder, so that when get to something easier you will feel more prepared.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• •  BIGNOLE  essentially replied the same way I would. I will add, though, that anyone (including you, Someone another) can nominate other candidates for the Collaboration. And you should feel free to do so. hornoir (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I agree. I'm not forcing this article upon anyone, so people should feel free to nominate other articles. That said, although this is not the easiest of articles to work on, a lot of time and effort have been spent on improving it, and it would make a good FA one day (hopefully by the end of the year). --EclipseSSD (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Call of Cthulhu

The Call of Cthulhu is possibly H. P. Lovecraft's most famous tale and it is shameful that it lingers in the C- to B-Class range. It would be a solid goal to not only raise this to GA- or A-Class, but even FA-Class. hornoir (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. hornoir (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
2.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC) - Though, I've not worked with literure based articles before, so I'll probably be regulated to general cleanup duties.

Comments

Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III

Article has a lot of problems, but it's actually one of the favorites in the series among fans. It virtually need to be built from the ground up. I do have the unrated DVD with the director commentary and a "Making of" documentary. I can also help with my university account for off-line sources.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

1.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
2. --EclipseSSD (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC) - I'm up for improving another Chainsaw film. Long-term aim is to get all TCM articles up to FA. That's something I'm working towards.

Comments

Alien 3

The first two in this series are GA articles, so it would be nice to get another one at least up to GA. I have the quadrilogy box set, with all the commentaries and behind-the-scenes extras I could go through.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

1.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Silent Hill (franchise)

I figured we could try our hands at something a little out of the norm, a video game article. Silent Hill is probably one of the most popular zombie video game franchises, next to Resident Evil. It could use a good franchise article. I know little about video game articles, but I'm sure there are some we could use for examples.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

1.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments