# Talk:The Town That Dreaded Sundown (1976 film)

Correction. It came out in 1977.
Other than that, I should recommend:
crimelibrary.com
stomptokyo—Preceding unsigned comment added by Enda80 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
-Incorrect.  The movie was in drive-in's in the USA in late '76.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 15:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Town That Dreaded Sundown/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 01:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I meant to go for this a few weeks ago, but didn't, so I'll go for it now.  --  Zanimum (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
So, I did a full review of the article, but left the USB astray. One critical think is cleaning up the references. Each reference is good and legitimate, but you need to use proper formatting. Either use the cite templates or manually input them, but the references should be more than just a link.
Also, are the news articles viewed through the Gazette website? Through a subscription database? Through microfilm? I'm hoping you might have titles for the articles. Also, the day of the week that a newspaper was published isn't really relevant, just the numerical date.  --  Zanimum (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Passing "Cast", "Modern", "External links".
Production

Did Wells read her script before her stay? How did she play the role, if she didn't read the script?
Maybe reiterate that Andrew Prine is an actor in the film? Since it's a different context for his name, I think it should be clarified.
Historical accuracy

What's a VFW? It's not a universal term.
Controversies

Don't use the word "appeal" to describe an action, when the action is in the court system, unless it is an actual appeal.
"he thought of his plan while watching" would work, but if you're including reference to Jesse James, you need context to that name.
Still to be reviewed: "Plot", "Promotion and release", "Contemporaneous", "Tradition", "In popular culture", "Remake".
Over to you, @JeremeK:.  --  Zanimum (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I took care of the "Production", "Historical accuracy", and "Controversies" suggestions you gave. I don't know what to do with the References; could you give me an example or help me with that? JeremeK (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
There's a couple done. When you hit Edit, look up just above the text box for editing, and there's a section that says Advanced, Special characters, Help, Cite. Click on Cite, and choose the appropriate template. Plug in the info, say okay, and you've got the citation formatted for you.
Toledo Blade, Bangor Daily News, The Milwaukee Journal all have reviews of the film, too FYI. (Found via Google News Archive, I only looked through the first page of results.)  --  Zanimum (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The article's references are looking great now. I've switched over the Dawn Wells and Andrew Prine Blu-ray special features into another format (cite AVmedia), and listed the essay as if it were a book (because it was published, stand-alone, unlike most essays).
I've deleted two of the references in the lead, as the information was repeated in the article itself.
I've left two references in the lead put, where they are, a rare exception to the rule. As there are so many websites listing the film as a 1977 release, this is a significant enough thing to justify a reference in the lead.
GA!  --  Zanimum (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

http://www.arkansas.com/places-to-go/film-tv/detail.aspx?id=20
The state actually has a (very small) list of filming locations, on their tourism website.  --  Zanimum (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, why does this stand again? Sorry for removing it twice if I'm in error. No real excuse for that other than my own problems. ;) Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

My main issues is that these sections fail WP:OR, they are original research. It may be obvious to you and me, but to people who aren't familiar with these films you are discussing, it's not "obvious". Even worse is that this supposed similarities suggest that those films took the idea from The Town That Dreaded Sundown, which there is no proof of. That's why I think this section needs to be removed or cited. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
It stands because it meets criteria per [Manual of Style - Popular Culture]
Films speak for themselves and do not need to be "cited". It is not original research. The similarities do not suggest anything (especially the idea that anything was "stolen" or "borrowed" from them), it simply points out the similarities. There is nothing in the sentence that suggests otherwise, therefore nothing to prove.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeremeK (talk • contribs) 03:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC) 

Do not remove tags that aren't settled yet. Also, it actually fails Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Popular_culture, because the statement "They should be supported by third party sources that place the reference into context." is not as followed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
"In Popular Culture" sections must be properly cited.  Without citations, it is original research to draw parallels between different texts.  We also need a secondary source to verify that the popular in culture in question is actually due.  Without this, it's just trivia that can be removed by any editor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I concur with NinjaRobotPirate. A connection or reference noted by a secondary source indicates that it is noteworthy for inclusion. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)