Talk:Apocalypse Clown/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 22:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 11:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Will review this one soon. —Kusma (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Content and prose review

• Lead: Link and gloss Galway Film Fleadh
  • Done. — Bilorv (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Lead seems a bit short, will need to comment later on what is missing
• Synopsis: "Bobo tries to perform a clown act on children in a hospital after he has been fired" do we know what job he has been fired from?
  • Rephrased—he's been fired from the hospital clowning job but came back without permission to do another performance. Let me know if it's still unclear as I'm finding it tricky to word. — Bilorv (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Overall the plot makes little sense, but I guess it is what it is.
  • I think we can afford more words if there's any particular parts, but there's a lot of leaps in the plot. — Bilorv (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• "Tim reveals that Alphonso drowned his brother" Tim's brother or Alphonso's brother?
  • Tim's (rephrased). — Bilorv (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link gunge.
  • Done. — Bilorv (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• "At the burial of Ducocque" is this different from the "funeral in Naherbawn" mentioned earlier? I assumed that was Ducocque's.
  • In Naherbawn it's an indoor service with a coffin (that ends in chaos) whereas at the end it's a burial in the ground. Rephrased the Naherbawn sentence. — Bilorv (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Production: Gloss David Coverdale.
  • Done. — Bilorv (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Seems you condensed "I was trying to make a $2 million Roland Emmerich film with clowns in Ireland." into "Kane was inspired by the films of Roland Emmerich." I assume this is the "apocalypse" bit, not the clown bit.
  • Yes, the apocalypse premise, but I'm not sure I can say more than the article does without original interpretation, since The Hollywood Reporter is very brief on it. — Bilorv (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Gloss Rolf Harris.
  • An awkward one... I've described him as an "entertainer and child sex abuser", with a reference unrelated to the film for verifiability due to the seriousness of the descriptor. — Bilorv (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• "a significant soundtrack" so what about it?
  • This was a paraphrase of "massive score" but looking at it again I think it's promotional fluff rather than factual information (it's not surprising that the film has a soundtrack and the source doesn't mention anything specific, like expensive songs licensed or big orchestras to record original music). — Bilorv (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• "The first day required all scenes in Naherbawn to be filmed, as they could only shut down a town centre for one day. " do we know which town centre? Also, it would be easier to parse with someone other than the day as subject of the sentence... "Filming of the scenes in Naherbawn had to be finished on the first day, ..."?
  • No knowledge of which town. I've rephrased as: "The scenes in Naherbawn required a town centre to be shut down, which the production could only do for one day." — Bilorv (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• "Fastnet Films, Namesake Films and Umedia" who are these companies and how did they raise $2 million?
  • See below. — Bilorv (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• "Charades handled international licensing" who is "Charades"?
• "$12000 [..] in its first week" is this the only box office number you have? The impression I get from this sentence plus the infobox is that the film was not shown in cinemas outside the UK (not even in Ireland).
• Why "U.K." instead of "UK"?
  • No particular reason—changed. — Bilorv (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Reception: Do you need so many separate paragraphs for this?
• The infobox contains things not mentioned or cited in the body. Cinematography, editor, music all need a citation, or even better, a full sentence or two in the article. Runtime also needs a citation.

Source spotchecks

Source numbering from special:permanentlink/1227454223.

• 1g: ok
• 2: I really do not believe these numbers (at least say there is nothing reported other than the opening weekend in the UK); I do not think the $12000 should be in the infobox without further comment
  • I've taken it out of the infobox; in the body it's contextualised. — Bilorv (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• 6a: ok
• 8b/c: ok
• 9:ok, but "Fantastia" is a typo and you should link Fantasia International Film Festival.
  • Fixed. — Bilorv (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• 11: ok
• 14: ok

Source checks are fine. The film was shown at a bunch of other film festivals including in Sweden and Switzerland.

General comments and GA criteria

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Some prose points above; untangling the synopsis section would be helpful in particular.
• No copyvio or concerns; sources are represented correctly.
• Perhaps because the film is still fairly new, the sources are heavily biased towards news/magazines and appear a bit superficial
• The article is a bit bare bones ("broadness" being breached?) Sound, special effects, commercial success outside the first week in the UK, anything?
• Investors / public film subsidies should be mentioned: [1].
  • This was also in Variety. I'm not entirely sure how to parse the paragraph but I've added: "It was funded by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, Vertigo Films and Screen Ireland." — Bilorv (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• another review, not sure if there is much in there
• Fair use image is relevant; caption could be clearer on whether this is an image from the film
• Actors are difficult to see on the image; consider adding images of Earl, Palamides, Kaye
  • Unfortunately our only free options for Palamides and Earl seem to be in character (Palamides in particular is unrecognisable), and I don't know whether multiple non-free images or larger non-free images would be within policy, but I've added an image of Kaye. — Bilorv (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Lead could be a bit more substantial

Seems like a weird film with little in-depth coverage shown here, but it may be worth digging a little more. The article certainly isn't bad but it is not convincingly Good yet either. Will put on hold. —Kusma (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Kusma. It's good to get an outside perspective on niche topics like these. I've started on these comments but it might take several days for me to fully address these points. — Bilorv (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the article! I am actually trying to learn how to write articles about relatively low budget independent films (I need to fix up all my film stubs (Eggs is terrible and Story in Taipei not much better). Perhaps I manage at least to get Leningrad Cowboys Go America to a decent shape.

Changes so far look good, let me know when you're done (or when you are sure the sources don't allow you to answer my queries). —Kusma (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I think I would like to see a mention of Belgium in the article. "an Irish-Belgian co-production" (post-production by a company called Dirty Looks Belgium). This interview also looks like it could provide a little more, for example the inspiration for Ducoq. —Kusma (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

And here is another interview with more background on the Clowns story. Belgium may have been involved to be able to use the Belgian tax shelter. —Kusma (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kusma: I'm very sorry I wasn't able to get this done after such a thorough and helpful review. — Bilorv (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bilorv, sad to see you leave, but I hope it is a happy new beginning for you. Your Challenges certainly have helped me to stay motivated by having difficult but achievable goals (I'm still aiming for the Jack of all trades bonus). Fare well! —Kusma (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.