Talk:Frankenstein's Army
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Frankenstein's Army article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Frankenstein's Army has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Expansion
This article is to short and should be expanded in more detail.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Plot and Reception Expansion
The plot and information on the film's reception needs to be expanded in more detail.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Missing Production section
There is no information in this article on the film's production like the designs of the creatures in the film and other filming information. This should be added to the article in order to completely cover the article's subject.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- I added a few details, but there's more out there. Here's a few more: , , , , , , , . Haven't looked at them yet. I'll try to remember to read them and add them to the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
GA review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Frankenstein's Army/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: AdobongPogi (talk · contribs) 06:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Reviewer: 11WB (talk · contribs) 18:58, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
Well-written?
Lead
- '
An international co-production of the United States, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands. The film is set on the Eastern Front of World War II, as seen from the point of view of a Red Army team.
' The second is a continuation of the first as it reads, so the fullstop (period) should be changed to a comma. - Per WP:LEADCITE, the lead shouldn't have inline citations. These needs to be moved into article text.
Marking as 
Done on behalf of nominator. 11WB (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Plot
- The use of hyphens for the list of people at the church should use long hyphens, —, rather than short hyphens.
- '
bizarre aberrations
' The lay reader, in this case myself, will be confused as to what this entails. I am left wanting to know exactly what the "bizarre aberrations" are. This is optional however, as WP:PLOTSUMNOT asks us to not "reproduce the experience of reading or watching the work". - '
To this end, he lobotomizes a kidnapped Nazi soldier, and then Sergei, who swears revenge on Dmitri before Frankenstein begins operating on him;
' This is a bit hard to follow and should be condensed/copyedited. - '
appears from behind and shoots him dead.
' This is not fully encyclopaedic and could be reworded to: 'appears from behind and fatally shoots him.
' - Per MOS:PLOT, plot summaries need to be kept under 700 words. This plot summary is currently at 935 words and needs to be shortened to meet this guideline.
Marking as Done on behalf of nominator. 11WB (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Cast
No issues here if all the names of the characters are correct.
Production
- '
Producers included Nick Jongerius and Daniel Koefoed of Pellicola and Todd Brown of XYZ Films.
This could be shortened to "they served as producers" or something along those lines. - '
In an interview with ComingSoon.net via Mandatory
' The interview is cited to ComingSoon.net, why does this say "via Mandatory"?
Marking as Done on behalf of nominator. 11WB (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Release
No issues here.
Reception
- '
which has compiled old and contemporary reviews,
' This is an unnecessary inclusion. RT is known as a review aggregator, which the text says. The following sentence for Metacritic also has a similar unnecessary inclusion. - There is also a grammatical error on this paragraph involving the use of two commas where no text is present.
- Point 3 of WP:CRS needs to be followed, as many of the quotes take up a large amount of text space. We require more summarisation, less direct quotation.
Marking as Done on behalf of nominator. 11WB (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Potential sequel
No issues.
- The above mostly consists of condensing text to comply with MOS guidelines where necessary and a few copyedits. 11WB (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- I am satisfied with the changes that have been made and am happy to pass this criterion.
This criterion is passed. 11WB (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Verifiable?
I will start this once the writing criterion is passed. 11WB (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
Numbers are based on this revision. 11WB (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- Ref 1: Collider is a WP:VALNET source, but is acceptable for use here. The interview seems to verify what's written in the article text. Unsure about the use of the term "mythology", as that isn't present in the source, but this is probably fine for summarisation.
- Ref 2: Verifies the information, however the reliability of the site is questionable. I'm less concerned as established editor @ROTP gave their approval. Concerns seem to be regarding sponsored content. This is attributed in the article text, so I'll give this one a tick.
- Ref 6: Another pass for verifiability. Unfortunately, its reliability was questioned in this 2024 RS/N discussion. Their website has no editorial page, outside of their about us page, which is more of a promo paragraph, rather than something actually legitimate. Unsure on this.
- Ref 9: This is fine.
- Ref 13: Potentially acceptable as a PRIMARY source, but I can't verify it due to not having timestamps (which needs to be marked in the article), and also due to them speaking Dutch.
- Ref 14: Haven't heard of the site, but it's apparently reliable. Verifies the information, so no issues here.
- Ref 21: Verifies the information, but the site is unassessed and has no visible editorial standards. This offers nothing.
- Removed.
- Removed.
Remaining half (based on this revision:
- Ref 24: Reliable, verifies information. No issues here.
- Ref 27: Haven't heard of the site, but it's marked as reliable by WP:A/S. The article cites The A.V. Club, which is reliable. Verifies the existence of a documentary.
- Ref 30: Fine on its own, however this is bundled with six other sources. This feels like an [excessive citations] situation. As this isn't used anywhere else, this can probably be removed entirely.
- Ref 32: I've cited Starburst before, I've no issues with this being used. It has the same issue as ref 30 however, and probably doesn't need to be included in favour of established reliable sources.
- Ref 33: See previous two.
- Ref 38: This is fine. You could opt to mention Re-Animator as an indirect older comparison by the writer.
- Ref 42: Unsure about the reliability of this one. What is this verifying that ref 41 (which is reliable) doesn't?
- Ref 45: This verifies the interest in a sequel, but doesn't seem to state that "an outline had already been prepared". Unsure of the reliability of this site also.
- Removed.
- Removed.
That concludes the source check. Once refs 30, 32, 33, 42 and 45 are addressed, I'll be happy to pass this article! @AdobongPogi 11WB (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
This criterion is passed. 11WB (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Broad in coverage?
If there is any more coverage available on sequels, this should be included (after looking myself, it doesn't appear there is any). This covers everything I would expect it to.
This criterion is passed. 11WB (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
Neutral?
I didn't read anything that violates the neutrality policy.
This criterion is passed. 11WB (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
Stable?
There are a couple of historic reversions, but nothing constituting a content dispute or edit war currently.
This criterion is passed. 11WB (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
Well illustrated?
The article has images of the DVD cover and the director which is fine. I would normally expect to see a film article infobox containing a theatrical release poster, rather than a box cover, however MOS:FILMNFI#Infobox does not appear to mandate this. For that reason, this criterion passes.
This criterion is passed. 11WB (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- @11WB Hello! Thanks for taking the time to review this article. I've addressed the issues based on your comments, and you can now check my revision history. AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 13:19, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update @AdobongPogi. Will take a look this evening, at the latest tomorrow. 11WB (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- @AdobongPogi, courtesy ping. The first half of the source spot-checks are complete. You're invited to comment directly beneath the ones that require addressing. (Make sure to sign so I can mark them as done when necessary.) 11WB (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- @11WB I will now go through the source spot check comments and respond beneath the ones that need to be addressed.
Ref 6
, ComingSoon.net is still as general use of film resources, which implies that it is useful in a limited way. Most of the articles on this site relate to news about films and TV shows. These can perhaps also be traced from other sources. This would be consensus at this point, since there isn't any other major discussion.Ref 13
, The three articles have been timestamped that I put since they all share the same BTS information. The interviews are bilingual to some extent; therefore, the subtitles will not be a waste of effort. In addition, the timestamps provide information about the individuals who played different parts in the film.Ref 21 (HeyUGuys)
, Since the source has no clear editorial history or background, and therefore, its reliability cannot be determined. Despite that source having been cited in some other articles, I have chosen to remove this content from the article, and I include sourced information on how the film was promoted. You may check it. 1
- AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 22:26, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- You have unintentionally introduced a WP:DUPCITE issue by including the same source three times. I can't show it here, but if you check Cryptogram of Olivier Levasseur, you will see some sources have a colon with a page number after them. If you go in the editor you will see how this is written. You'll be able to use just the one ref, using the extra formatting for the timestamps inline. 11WB (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- Mistaken. Thanks for pointing that out. I looked at Cryptogram of Olivier Levasseur that you sent me and found a better way to handle it. Is it fine if I use the ("reference page") template for the timestamps? AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 23:10, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- That's the one. I wasn't able to link it here directly. 11WB (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- @11WB Fixed. AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 23:39, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- I've verified the information. Thank you for making these changes. Happy to tick this one off. 11WB (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- Sure. Are there any sources that need clarification? AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 01:02, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- I've verified the information. Thank you for making these changes. Happy to tick this one off. 11WB (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- @11WB Fixed. AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 23:39, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- That's the one. I wasn't able to link it here directly. 11WB (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- Mistaken. Thanks for pointing that out. I looked at Cryptogram of Olivier Levasseur that you sent me and found a better way to handle it. Is it fine if I use the ("reference page") template for the timestamps? AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 23:10, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- You have unintentionally introduced a WP:DUPCITE issue by including the same source three times. I can't show it here, but if you check Cryptogram of Olivier Levasseur, you will see some sources have a colon with a page number after them. If you go in the editor you will see how this is written. You'll be able to use just the one ref, using the extra formatting for the timestamps inline. 11WB (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- @11WB I will now go through the source spot check comments and respond beneath the ones that need to be addressed.
- @AdobongPogi, courtesy ping. The first half of the source spot-checks are complete. You're invited to comment directly beneath the ones that require addressing. (Make sure to sign so I can mark them as done when necessary.) 11WB (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update @AdobongPogi. Will take a look this evening, at the latest tomorrow. 11WB (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- @11WB Ref 45 (Flixist) is fine for me to use here as a "primary" source since it is a direct interview with the director. I have removed the "outline" part of the statement so readers are not left wondering about what happened next. The source has also been used in other Wikipedia articles for interviews and reviews. For the "cult following" part, I removed a few references from that portion. But I have question, do the other three references need to be cited in the notelist, or should I go with citing them directly? AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 23:06, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
This article meets all the criteria and can be reassessed as a good article! 11WB (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Did you know nomination
( )
- ... that the practical effects in Frankenstein's Army were inspired by John Carpenter's The Thing?
- ALT1: ... that director Richard Raaphorst redeveloped Frankenstein's Army from scratch after the collapse of his earlier project Worst Case Scenario? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20260418042033/https://screenanarchy.com/2013/04/iffr-2013-a-talk-with-richard-raaphorst-about-frankensteins-army.html
- ALT2: ... that the iconic square-headed appearance of Boris Karloff as Frankenstein monster was a major influence on the industrial creature designs in Frankenstein's Army? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20260124181902/http://filmint.nu/behind-enemy-lines-an-interview-with-frankensteins-army-director-richard-raaphorst-and-star-alexander-mercury/
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hands Up (2PM song)
Improved to Good Article status by AdobongPogi (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.
AdobongPogimasarap 🍛 05:10, 11 July 2026 (UTC).
Its very new, its a GA, its well referenced and its neutrality has been improved in the GA process. Earwig is happy. I'm no fan of ALT1 but the others are hooky. I would suggest that ALT2 would get the most hits if (you change the link) and its accompanied by an iconic shot of the classic Frankenstein's monster. Ping me if you add an image. This is good to go though. Victuallers (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Victuallers Thanks for the review. The words "Frankenstein's monster" are linked, and I would like to ask: would this image be acceptable for ALT2? (1) I was thinking of using it. AdobongPogimasarap 🍛 09:59, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
- That's the one I would have chosen ... you need to add it to the article, here and (pictured) then ping me again Victuallers (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
- Ping @Victuallers you may check the image, especially the caption. Is it fine?
- That's the one I would have chosen ... you need to add it to the article, here and (pictured) then ping me again Victuallers (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Victuallers Thanks for the review. The words "Frankenstein's monster" are linked, and I would like to ask: would this image be acceptable for ALT2? (1) I was thinking of using it. AdobongPogimasarap 🍛 09:59, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
AdobongPogimasarap 🍛 10:23, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
- rights are OK but I think you need to consider Jack Pierce (make-up artist), this isnt Karloff's design. He created a 20th century icon that other companies paid to use. Mention in article? You might even think of including him in the hook as many might think it was Karloffs invention and click to find out who Jack Pierce is Victuallers (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
- i checked the sources and other interviews I have used, and they mention only the director James Whale and Boris Karloff; they do not discuss the makeup design or attribute it to Jack Pierce. To prevent myself from stating something without any evidence, I will use the neutral caption "
Boris Karloff as Frankenstein’s monster
" instead or something? AdobongPogimasarap 🍛 13:25, 11 July 2026 (UTC)- Lots of sources don't mention it. That's not proof. this convinces me. However it's a side issue so I tweaked the hook and I'm happy with Alt2, but you cannot use the image as its not in the article (I did mention that). Victuallers (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Victuallers Sure, I'll remove the image since it is not used in the article. Thanks for the clarification. AdobongPogimasarap 🍛 23:25, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
- Lots of sources don't mention it. That's not proof. this convinces me. However it's a side issue so I tweaked the hook and I'm happy with Alt2, but you cannot use the image as its not in the article (I did mention that). Victuallers (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2026 (UTC)