Talk:The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: Drown Soda (talk · contribs) 00:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jon698 (talk · contribs) 17:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Will conduct a review in due time. Jon698 (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Here are some comments I have so far @Drown Soda:
1. Is the "uniquely" necessary in the lede? It feels like an unnecessary adjective.
2. Could Principal photography took place in 1994 on location in rural areas in Bastrop and Pflugerville, Texas, with a largely Austin-based cast and crew. be changed to Principal photography took place on location in rural areas in Bastrop and Pflugerville, Texas, in 1994, with a largely Austin-based cast and crew.
3. I looked at another GA, Psycho (1960 film), and saw that it put the "Themes and style" section below reception, but above legacy. Would you be fine with moving the "Analysis" section to between the Reception and Legacy sections.
4. Could Elements of this subplot are referenced in Henkel's 2012 film Butcher Boys, which, although not an official The Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie in name, may indeed be the next chapter in the story.[26] Henkel's Butcher Boys was initially written as a sequel to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.[27] be changed to Elements of this subplot are referenced in Henkel's 2012 film Butcher Boys. It is not an official The Texas Chainsaw Massacre film in name,[26] but was initially written as a sequel to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.[27]
5. The sentence Another element noted by both critics and film scholars is Leatherface's overt cross-dressing, which was briefly explored in the original film but implemented to a greater extent. feels incomplete. Should something like "in this film" be tacked onto the end? Jon698 (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Noted—all of these changes make sense to me. I will move ahead with making the alterations. Thank you! –Drown Soda (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Drown Soda: Can you add alts to all of the images? Jon698 (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, I added them myself. Jon698 (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2025 (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):

   After going through the article and making some copyedits, along with requesting some edits from Drown Soda, I can find no more problems with the prose.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

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

   I will conduct a review of 16 references representing 10% of the total.
   1. Source 5 does list the length of the film as 95 minutes
   2. Source 7 does list the budget as $600,000
   3. Source 23 does state that McConaughey was an unknown actor, that he was in Dazed and Confused, and the quote that it sources.
   4. Source 30 does state that Robert Jacks was a radio host and singer that was cast as Leatherface.
   5. Source [36] "Horror Films of the 1990s" does cover the cameo appearances
   6. Source 40 does list the working title The Taxidermist: Texas Chainsaw Massacre 4
   7. Source 47 does cover Zellweger's quotes
   8. Source 51 does state that the music was done entirely by people from Austin
   9. Source 60 does list the film as being shown at the Paramount Theatre on March 12
   10. Source 69 does cover the test-market release in Portland, Oregon.
   11. Source 71 does cover the CCA lawsuit
   12. Source 85 does cover CFP releasing the film under the Avalanche banner
   13. Source 98 does cover the VHS reissue for the Halloween season
   14. Source 103 does cover Scream Factory's announcement of a Blu-ray
   15. Source 113 is accurately conveys Joe Bob Briggs' review
   16. Source 130 does list its Saturn Awards nomination

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers the plot, production, reviews, analysis, and legacy of the film. I cannot think of anything that it is missing.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I can find no neutrality issues. It offers both negative and positive reviews for the film and the reviews for the original and edited versions.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars are ongoing

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

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

   Good usage of images throughout the article and all of them have alts.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I have no more issues with the article. All of the edit requests I made to Drown Soda were met, all of the sourcing that I checked is in line, and the article does not appear to be lacking any significant pieces of information.

@Jon698: thank you, it is very much appreciated. I have worked on this article on and off over the course of a number of years, so this is great news. Thank you for taking the time to review. –Drown Soda (talk) 04:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)