Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror/Collaboration

Welcome to the WikiProject Horror Collaboration of the Month! This effort seeks to identify articles within the genre of horror that require improvement. Every month, a single article will be selected as the collaboration, and everyone will work to improve it as much as possible.

Nominating articles

To nominate an article, add

===[[Name of article]]===

Nomination text. ~~~~

'''Support'''
# ~~~~

'''Comments'''

at the bottom of the list of candidates, filling in the name of the article and the nomination text (which should indicate why the article would benefit from a collaboration and what needs to be improved). It is recommended that specific goals be given for new collaborations, such as "promoting to GA status", to help direct the efforts of contributors.

Please remember to add collaboration-candidate=yes to the {{HorrorWikiProject}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (see the Project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).

Stalled nominations

Nominations which have "stalled" through lack of support are listed at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror/Collaboration/Stalled. Stalled nominations are those which have received no more than two votes of support (including the original nomination) during their first six months on the candidates list. Should a stalled nomination receive a third vote of support, its listing should return to the list of active candidates below as it may have sufficient community interest to be selected.

Current collaboration

None yet selected.

Candidates

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)

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)

History

	Date	Article	Votes	Edits	Improvement
1	May 23, 2006 – June 23, 2006	John Carpenter	8	30	Before • After • Changes

Archives

• 2009 archive
• 2006 archive

Maintenance

At the beginning of every month, a new collaboration article should be selected. This should generally be the candidate with the most support (and the oldest candidate in case of a tie).

To archive the current collaboration

1. Remove {{HCOTM}} from the top of the current collaboration article.
2. Change the date details on the article talk page past-collaboration=<start date>–<end date> in the {{HorrorWikiProject}} project banner to include the end date.
3. Add the current article to the bottom of the history section.
4. Move the current article's nomination text to the archive.

To select the new collaboration

1. Add {{HCOTM}} to the top of the new article.
2. Move the new article's nomination text to the "Current collaboration" section.
3. Update Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror/Collaboration/Current to point to the new article.
4. Replace collaboration-candidate=yes with past-collaboration=<start date>–<end date> in the {{HorrorWikiProject}} banner at the top of the new article's talk page. The "<end-date>" element should read "open" to start with.

Notify other members of the WikiProject

1. Add {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror/Collaboration/Notice}} ~~~~ to the talk pages of users who supported the new article; do this only after Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror/Collaboration/Current has been updated to reflect the new selection.
2. Add a post on the Notice Board advertising the new collaboration to project members.
3. Notify any relevant task forces of the current collaboration.