Talk:The Haunting in Connecticut

The Haunting in Connecticut is currently a Theatre good article nominee. Nominated by bwmcmaste (talk) at 01:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

The Haunting in Connecticut was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 16, 2010). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Film: American B‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror B‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cleanup

I've (once again) cleaned up the article (removed excessive plot notations), removed the unverifiable content, cited relevant material, and rewritten the plot summary to make it more encyclopedic. I have also removed the template regarding the excessive plot matter. It would be to the benefit of the article if people refrained from adding anymore unsourced content or misusing citations on unverifiable quotes or claims. Oh, and just for posture: I've removed the below comment regarding "Hello Pappy..."bwmcmaste (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone vandalized the plot summary replacing certain things with sexual related acts/organs/persons. As with the first line, replacing "Matt Campbell who is being treated for cancer..." to "Robert Walker, who is being treated for being a sex addict...". No one seemes to notice this so I undid the vandalized material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFallenWillBeRemembered (talk • contribs) 21:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actual Events

Update: I've cleaned up the article (wikified it), added substantial content, and taken out alot of the poor structuring and prose that was mentioned earlier in this discussion. The article reads more like the others that we have here on Wikipedia, but I'd like it if someone could grab some better inline citations for my contributions: The site that I've sourced them from are blocked by Wikipedia's spam filters (even though it is running a legitimate story). If I were to weigh my opinion based on the research that I've done for this article: I would have a hard time believing that this movie was anything other than a horror/thriller, based on a story written by a guy, who has admitted that he intended to produce a work of fiction. bwmcmaste (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to agree with the others on this page: There should be an expansion on these "true events". It would be a good contribution to this article, or as an interesting article on its own. bwmcmaste (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a reprint of the movie's press release. Shouldn't there be some discussion of the "true events" that the movie is supposedly based on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.21.167 (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the original book about this (In a Dark Place by Ray Garton) has repeatedly expressed his displeasure at his experience writing the book, calling it an all time low in his career as an author. He states that this is a work of fiction. I really don't think that a discussion of the veracity of the story is that necessary as it is discussed in the wiki article on Ray Garton and this is just an article on a film that claims to be "based on a true story". Well, it is based on a true story, as these are real people who lived in a real house.

DFS (talk) 10:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the movie claims that it is based on a true, yet Wiki has nothing to say about this in its article on the movie. the claim is very prominent in the ads for the movie. the Wiki on Ray Garton doesn't say any of that. And so what if it writing it was so unpleasant? is the "true story" about how unpleasant writing this story was? or are we on the same page here. is it only a "true story" based on the characters being based on real people but that nothing like in the movie actually happened to them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.28.26 (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a forum

Guys, can we limit the discussion to improving the article? If you would like to discuss this movie, do that elsewhere, like IMDb. If you have info regarding any of this stuff along with a request to somehow integrate it into the article, that's fine, this is not a forum for discussing the movie. Tubularbells1993 (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agreed 66.235.9.15 (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mental state of the family who related this "true" story?

Garton has, however, noted that he doesn't like this book, and is glad it is out of print, saying: "The family involved, which was going through some serious problems like alcoholism and drug addiction, could not keep their story straight, and I became very frustrated; it's hard writing a non-fiction book when all the people involved are telling you different stories —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.175.84 (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have met the kid who allegedly had cancer, he was a drug addict and he was constantly seeing things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bankman (talk • contribs) 00:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he was diagnosed as a schizophrenic. Luckily, that's covered in the skeptical inquirer article I referenced in my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeptic practitioner (talk • contribs) 07:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No longer haunted

I'd like to believe that, unfortunately, I cannot as it is not sourced. A lot of this article needs sourcing or at least citations (until I can figure out which I will not add any templates) Tubularbells1993 (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good! so far...

Now that we have laid out the supposed 'true story' on which this work is based, why don't we move on to merging the two sections? Tubularbells1993 (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that some clean-up is in order first. Articles from Spill.com are not reliable sources, so they should be replaced. In addition, wtop.com and newsday.com are the same article, so only one should be cited. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this actually was a true story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.29.98 (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I trust the skeptical inquirer article is a good one to shed some light on this case then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeptic practitioner (talk • contribs) 07:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference cleanup & copyediting

I just did a good bit of reference-citation cleanup and some copyediting, and I wanted to make one point here that all editors adding references should take to heart. Never, never, ever use bare links as references. A bare link is just the URL of a webpage (e.g., http://blah-blah-blah.com/whatever), with absolutely no information about what the link is supposed to show.

The reason for this is that the Web is extremely dynamic, and your link has a good chance of being broken for many reasons – expired news story, website reorganization, change of ownership, web server unavailability, etc. It is extremely important to include as much information as possible to allow editors to fix these links when they break. Stuff like page or article title, author, work (newspaper or book) title, website name (which is sometimes very different from the web domain name), date of page (especially for news articles), and publisher (e.g., Associated Press, which is the original publisher of many news-feed services like Yahoo! News and local media outlets), all help us to find a new source for the old information, especially when the Wayback Machine hasn't archived a copy.

You don't need to fill in a formal {{citation}} template like I do, but at least include some of the above information between the <ref> and </ref> tags. Thank you for your assistance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed an edit made by a user that removed the word "claims" from the section for "true-story claims". Clearly, there is no indisputable proof (or even marginally reasonable proof) that a majority of this story is "true"; hence we should continue to refer to any such reference as a "claim" in lieu of any suggestion that it is fact. bwmcmaste (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Reed AKA Carmen Snedeker

I have posted a link in the External Links section for Carmen Reed's website. Verily Carmen Snedeker is now known as Carmen Reed, and identifies herself as a "Spiritual Advisor". This is according to the following link: http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/31004/a-haunting-connecticut-what-really-happened bwmcmaste (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General Cleanup

I have cleaned up the plot section of this article (yes, once again!) and removed all of the excessive details. I would just like to remind everyone that we do not need strenuous details on every aspect of the story: A quick summary of what the movie is "about" is good enough for an encyclopedic entry. We don't need the whole screenplay for the purposes of this article. However, I've added a "refimprove" template to the top of the article, as we need to acquire some citations for the plot content. bwmcmaste (talk) 02:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a quick revert of the plot section (same as above). bwmcmaste (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a minor rewrite of the plot and beefed up the intro a bunch. The rewrite was mainly to cleanup the grammar and prose of some fellow contributor's additions to the plot section. bwmcmaste (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added a production section and quote from Roger Ebert to balance out the tone of reviews (interestingly enough: Mr. Ebert actually quoted this article in the making of his review). http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090325/REVIEWS/903259997

Vandal repair & Studio Info

I fixed some vandalism by User talk:173.48.68.50. Verily, they thought it would be funny to delete an entire section.
Also, I'm not really sure why tax credits (i.e. Canadian Film or Video Production Tax Credit) were listed in the studio section of the infobox, but I have removed them. At the very least this is not the right place for them, and they create an unnecessary amount of clutter. bwmcmaste (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Cleanup

I reverted some duplication vandalism and cleaned up some reference vandalism.--Auric (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Haunting in Connecticut/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Lead: Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should be a concise overview of the article body. Currently there is only one basic sentence.
Production: There is no section about the film's production. Where was it filmed? What was the writing process like? How did they create the effects for ectoplasm?
Critical reception: There could be more samples of reviews, and outside of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, avoid using a single review to make a blanket statement about all critics. For example, The Charlotte Observer credited the acting, but this does not mean other reviews did.
Box office: "Domestic" will mean the United States and Canada. Also, how much did the film make total in these combined territories? Mention that figure and mention the figure from "other territories" and provide the worldwide total.
External links: Per WP:EL, there should be a limited number of external links in this section. As many links as possible should be implemented in the article body and others removed.

Overall, the article is a reasonable start, but I think it falls short of Good Article standard mainly due to lack of content. More research could be done to flesh out the article in all quarters. I can put the article on hold for improvements to be made, but I think there is too much to be done for a hold. Does the primary editor believe he/she can do the work? Please look at Good Articles Doomsday (film) and Vampyr for an idea of how much a Good Article should cover.

Reviewer: Erik (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due to lack of followup of the above points, I am failing this Good Article nomination. Erik (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the majority of the issues listed in the initial review, and the article should be conversant enough to satisfy the criteria for Good Article status. bwmcmaste (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a page format issue which I had corrected with my edit. Unfortunately the latest edits have reverted my edit leaving the quote box hanging on the right between two sections viewing in Firefox. The section on the DVD release makes no sense datewise placed before the sections on Critical Reception and Box Office. I only edited this article on a chance encounter and do not wish to get further involved, but I would not support this as a Good Article in its current state.Bill Oversixty (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]