Talk:Michael Myers (Halloween)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: There seems to be consensus that the article does not cover essential aspects of the character in enough detail. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive usage of primary sources, aritcle isn't broad in coverage (lacking scholar sources, copy the article like Slender Man), unsourced statements, lack of Folkloric qualities or reception section, and the usage of some unreliable sources in the concept/creation section like Youtube and Reddit and primary sources in the popular culture section. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 03:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:

1. Excessive use of primary sources? Are you referring to the plot section being sourced to the films? If you're referring to interview books and documentaries, they would be the best sources for information pertaining to the creation of the actual character.

2. Broad coverage is defined as "main aspects of the topic". The main aspect of the topic would be the creation of the character and his impact on popular culture. The article covers those (the former in great depth). This is a GA article, not an FA article. The criteria for "broad" certainly didn't change between 2008 and now. What I can tell you from going through the history is that sometimes in 2009 some IP vandal successfully deleted a huge section of information and it was never caught.

3. What unsourced statements? The only unsourced part of the article is in the plot section, and it isn't technically required to have an in-line citation for a film summary. It's a fixable issue.

4. Lack of folkloric qualities and reception? I don't know what you mean by folkloric qualities. Michael is a film character, not an urban legend.

5. Youtube and Reddit were used for one source as confirmation of a Halloween film appearing in another film. the entire thing is removed because it's not relevant. That was a single instance for both Youtube and Reddit (as it was the same source). Your statement makes it seem like the article was riddled with the use of Youtube/Reddit pages.

If you're going to request a reassessment, you need to provide more specific issues and not vague statements that force people to guess at what you're referring to.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that my statement is kinda exaggerating, I'll redo again. Oh btw, I already raised my concern here [1] before, so I wouldn't even know that the IP removed a lot of content way back from 2009. So, if this article wasn't sent out to GAR does it mean that the content will never be restored? This is the problem with some Old GA articles being forgotten. I also disagree with "the criteria for broad certainly didn't change between 2008 and now", the article easily passed the GA process before unlike now. There are some sources doesn't have author's name that should be implemented. ref51, ref53 ,ref55, ref56, ref58 sources should be replaced into reliable, ref 57 dead source, and instead of using unreliable source like ref61 just remove it and add other merchandise instead with these sources [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. There are some recent sources that could potentially expand the article [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] and maybe this two also? [14] [15] Note: I understand your frustration, but I'm not here just to destroy the GA icon. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 04:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+ There were no mentions about the novelizations of Halloween: The Official Movie Novelization (2018), Taking Shape: Developing Halloween from Script to Scream (2019) and Halloween 3 - “Where the Hell is Michael Myers?”: A definitive history of horror’s most misunderstood film (2022). The lead should also be updated + the infobox image rationale should be improved. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 05:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue there are several statements in the article that are not backed up by their respective sources. The infobox lists several actors (Chris Durand, Brad Loree, Tyler Mane, etc.) who are not mentioned anywhere in the prose. Other infobox details like his "choice weapon". Some statements such as being seen in a commercial in Halloween III are unsourced. Halloween H20: 20 Years Later says it ignores the events of the first three films, but is that stated on the DVD? There are curious highlighted information about the differences between the novel and the book (i.e: Myere's having an erection) that just cites the book, but if this is a big deal or notable, we should have a source discussing the character variations from the novel and film. Some of the more specific video details sourced to dvds in the creation section have no time stamp, which is kind of expected nowadays in sourcing for this kind of material. The statement "Michael Myers is regarded as one of the most recognizable and most iconic horror villains, alongside..." is cited to just a dozens of "Top 10" or "Best---" lists, which isn't quite stating what the sources say. All the trivial mentions of him appearing on tv shows that cite the show itself are basically trivial and feels like a bulleted list written out as prose (Michael Myers is seen in this show. He's also been sold as prop from Spirit of Halloween. Michael appears in...") we can't list every piece of outside media citing Michael, so why hunt and choose? I would agree with Greenish Pickle that there is no reception section and it's mostly down to top 10 lists that summarize "oh he's one of the most iconic of all time", which, no matter how many lists you find, doesn't quite state that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at work, but when I have time I'll go through the article line by line and see what's there. I've only monitored the page for basic vandalism (which, obviously, I didn't do a good job of back in 2009) and haven't paid that much attention to what's been added over the years. That said, "broad coverage" is NOT "comprehensive coverage", which is an FA criteria. So, listing things that aren't used in the article doesn't mean that it isn't broad in its coverage. There doesn't need to be a source in the info box for actors that have portrayed the role, as basic IMDB credits have always been accepted for essentially demographic information about a film. Again, I'll go through it line by line to see what doesn't make sense (I'm not sure why someone put anything about an erection in there for example, but random editors will be random editors).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue definitely need sources for material like that. Even going beyond WP:RS and WP:OR, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article." And yeah, this is what I mean by some trivial mentions. I'm not expecting a featured article content as I barely touch those, but based on the information I suggested, if this was being submitted as a good article today, I think it would be close to passing, but its reception section and infobox material would hold it back for me. No rush on getting back to me if you are at work, I'm definitely not in the market to try and say remove the good article status for this article within a day, week, etc. There are just some things we could definitely work on. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have been watching this article for a while now, I have noticed that the scope of the article is incomplete. There is not a lot of information going into the creation and the development of the character. I see a lot of information on the people that played him and some characterization that could be associated with the creation of the character. I do agree that there are plenty of sourcing issues and the article is long overdue for an update and expansion.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. You said there is NOT a lot of information going into the creation and development of the character? Are we reading the same article? There are 3 rather extensive sections on his creation and development. Not having information from the last 3 films (which is probably on their respective pages...I haven't looked at them), does not mean that there is "not a lot" of information. What sourcing issues? So far, this GAR has been a lot of vague ideas of problems and not real, specific issues. The only sourcing issues that existed that have been pointed out were a deadline (which isn't as relevant because it was a journal article, the link was for ease of access), the use of primary sources to cite an episode of a show (nothing wrong with this, so long as the information isn't an interpretation and in those cases it was not). I think people are confusing "unreliable" with "primary" and thinking that all primary sources are either unreliable or unusable. I would point you all to WP:PRIMARY. The problem that exists is that when you're talking about fictional characters, movies, tv shows, etc. you're going to use a lot more primary sources than a normal article because that's where the real world, behind the scenes information is going to come from. It isn't going to come from secondary sources. Secondary sources would be used for interpretive, analytical information that is being used to support the article. Context is important when it comes to the breakdown of the categories for sources in an article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What @Paleface Jack: is saying isn't complicated to understand. There is a ton of information about what actors brought into the role (paragraphs upon paragraphs), but little about what was involved with creating the character from the writers or anyone else involved on the set. You also just said it's lacking information on the last three films. And yes, third-party sources would be interpretive, but that is art and we require more third-party interpretations of the character. There is a ton of material here from the people who made them, but barely anything outside the bubble of people who made it. As for your citing WP:PRIMARY, dont' forget "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. While a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere, do not put undue weight on its contents." In short, you need more input from outside sources. The journal link is a good start, but just saying "he's one of the most recognized and iconic horror villains" means nothing when you just cite a bunch of top 10s. These kind of statements need context, and you can add a dozen more "best of" lists, but that doesn't really help much here. How does he fit into the pop culture? Why is he iconic/recognizable? Were there tests done? These part needs a re-buff. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I wad meaning. we have some of the lore but a lot of information going into the creation of the character is absent. I always look to the article on Jason Voorhees as a shining example of how to structure articles like this and have used that as a template for my own contributions. Michael, being the influential slasher villain that he is, there needs to be balance and consistency with how the article is structured and written without going overboard with the information. As to the sources, there are a lot of new sources both literary and web that can be used here. Video and periodical citations are good too if they are reliable enough. As it stands though, the article, I am sad to say, is not GA material as it once was. I am certain though that is will be in the future. just not in into current state.Paleface Jack (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]