# Talk:Social thriller

This review is transcluded from Talk:Social thriller/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: StewdioMACK (talk · contribs) 16:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Will be reviewing this shortly. StewdioMACK (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


### Lead
The current lead section is quite decent and summarises the article passably, but it needs to be longer. Per MOS:LEAD, you should try and maybe add another paragraph.


### Retrospective usage
Try changing "was being used" to "has been used".
"Inspired by" (with a capital) should just be "inspired by".
Can you try changing the word "bandied"? Sounds a little unencyclopedic.
"Another Poitier film, 1967's In the Heat of the Night, got tagged as social thriller by Leonard Maltin." This sentence is quite clunky and you should try rewriting it.
Try changing "having been" to "which was".
The word "homosexual" should have quotes around it.
"[...] having been the first English language film on record to use the word homosexual and made in the United Kingdom when homosexuality was still persecuted as a crime." Doesn't really flow as a sentence. Could you make this more concise?
"goes a bit further" isn't encyclopaedic.


### Get Out and after
Could we paraphrase the long quote in the third paragraph a little bit?
Otherwise good.


### Sourcing
Happy with sourcing.
References list looks good.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Conclusion
Very nice work. I'd just like to give you a little bit of time to expand the lead a bit and fix some issues with the prose (particularly in the "Retrospective usage" section) and then I think this will be an easy pass. So for now, I'm putting this on hold. StewdioMACK (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you StewdioMACK. I am requesting a couple of weeks to get to this as some work has pulled me away from dedicated Wikipedia editing at the moment. Morganfitzp (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
No problem, just ping me again when you're ready for me to take another look. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Coming up to a month since the last comment here. Just reminding @StewdioMACK and Morganfitzp: in case this has been forgotten. Let me know if I can help. AIRcorn (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll have a look at tis now. Morganfitzp (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for you patience, StewdioMACK and Alrcorn. I added a little more to the lede and cleaned up some wording in the requested section. I hereby submit this article for your re-review. Morganfitzp (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Aircorn, it appears that StewdioMACK has become inactive of late, with only a few edits elsewhere since the above post, and none in the past four weeks. This has been waiting for over two months since the nominator responded. As you did offer your assistance above, might you be able to finish the review? If not, I can try to find another reviewer. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I will try and get to it sometime on the weekend if no one beats me first. AIRcorn (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Morganfitzp: A well written article. I was thinking it should have a definition of what makes a film a social thriller. There is a one sentence description in the lead, but the body jumps straight into usages of the label social thriller. Some of this is spread throughout the following sections, but I found myself wondering what a social thriller actually is. Also I am not quite sure what One critique is that niche genre films achieving wider success than that of a genre's fanbase are re-categorized to make them more palatable to the mainstream means. Needs a bit more in the lead too. Something about the critiques and maybe a bit more from films earlier then "Get out". Also not so sure about the caption, is it better to describe Sidney Poitier as a social thriller actor or an actor who has starred in social thillers. References look good and can't think of any other issues. Let me know what you think of these comments. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@Aircorn:, thanks. Addressing these questions:
Definition: I added one at the start of the first section, and another in the first paragraph of the Get Out section.
Critique: I reworded the first sentence of this section, and its statement is supported by quotes from critics in following sentences. I'd love to find critique of the term prior to Get Out's release, but I cannot.
Caption: Were Poitier the only one in the photo, I'd have worded it, "Actor Sidney Poitier, who starred in many social thrillers." But that sounds clunky when adding info about Belafonte, Heston, and the March on Washington, so "social thriller" becomes the the descriptor for the actor rather than the object he acts upon.
Do let me know if these edits and explanations pass muster. Morganfitzp (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Seem good to me. Passing. AIRcorn (talk) 08:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciation to the editors who started the lists of soicial thrillers and directors known for making them. It is likely that this section will become its own list-class article as these lists grow and others lists are added (social thriller novels, plays, TV shows, video games, etc.) In the meantime, because this is a GA-class article, let's get to work on the following:

Add a source after each listed item, a lot of which appear earlier in the article, so pulling a named reference will make this easy.
Put more films and directors onto the lists, many of whom also appear in the body of the article.
Format citations using the template drop-down menu, naming each reference "[Author], [date]" for easy access to re-citing.
Thanks so much! Morganfitzp (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I find the highlighting of Get Out as the film which drew attention (whose?) to the subgenre of the "social thriller" problematic, all the more as the article cites various sources which point this subgenre and noted representatives of it back to the 1970s, clearly implying that the social thriller drew attention (by critics, audience, scholars ?) much earlier. Either a series of films should be cited as examples, or none, but not Get Out alone. Robert Kerber (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)