Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Destination 3/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2017 [1].

Final Destination 3[edit]

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Final Destination 3, the third installment of the popular horror movie franchise. Released in 2006, it sees James Wong and Glen Morgan return as writers after having been absent during the second movie. Diverging from its predecessors, which were highly linked to one another, FD3 was written from the beginning as a stand-alone sequel. The film focuses on Wendy Christensen as the film's visionary, played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead. Having foreseen the derailment of the Devil's Flight roller coaster, she manages to save some of her friends and realizes the pictures she took during the fair contain clues about how they're all going to die.

I got the article to GA-status in spring and tried getting it to FA-status a few months ago but due to personal reasons was unable to continue with the review. Since then I've made a few minor edits, mostly focused on the sources, replacing them with more reliable ones. I hope people enjoy reading the article and become interested enough to watch the movie as well. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

Comments from Aoba47

Wonderful work with this article. I will leave my comments/suggestions for improvement below and good luck with it this go-around:

  • In the lead’s first paragraph, would it be helpful to add in the release year for the first film (i.e. 2000). It could be placed in parenthesis at the end of the sentence.
  • Revised.
  • I was a little confused by the note. You do not specify where the “six years ago” line came from. I am assuming that it was in the beginning of this film, but I believe you should fully explain the context by adding that to the note.
  • I added a little bit more context as to when and where this happens.
  • For the lead, please add the year in which the second film was released.
  • Done.
  • I think you can cut “who was” after you talk about Jeffrey Reddick for conciseness.
  • Done.
  • I would revise the following two sentences, “Final Destination 3 received mixed reviews. Negative reviews stated that the film was formulaic and did not bring anything new to the franchise.“, to avoid ending one sentence with “reviews” and starting another with the same word. In the third sentence you also use “reviews” in “positive reviews”. I would cut down on the use of the word in such close proximity.
  • Revised though I'm not sure if replacing "negative reviews" with "negative ones" is that much better.
  • I have done some revision here. Let me know what you think. Feel free to revert. Once I hear your feedback on this part, I will support this as you have addressed everything else. Aoba47 (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh damn, I didn't even think of that. It is better that way, thank you. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure to link Final Destination 3 and Final Destination 2 when you first reference them in the body of the article. I would also add the release years too.
  • Half-done. I need to link the third film to itself?
  • Oops, you are right. I had brain fart here. Sorry about that. Aoba47 (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • XD
  • Link James Wong when you first mention him in the body of the article.
  • Done.
  • In the “Casting” subsection, you do not need to link the characters as they are all linked in the “Plot” section above. The actors were already linked too so you do not need to link them again.
  • Doesn't that fall under the same instance with Wong's name that people should be linked the first time they're mentioned in the main body?
  • I would move the screenshot of the tanning bed death down to the section where it is discussed.
  • I did think about doing that as while their death scene is the source of analysis.. but at the same time it was also pretty notable in reviews, being regarded as (one of) the best death(s) in the film / franchise. I guess it has notability in both sections.
  • I will leave it up to further reviewers. It was more of a suggestion, as I do not have a major problem with the placement. It is a good screenshot for the section so it was a wise addition to the article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work with this. My comments pertain just to the prose, as I will leave anything about source use and reliability to the source review. If possible, I would greatly appreciate feedback on my current FAC. Either way, great job with this and I will support this once everything is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I will wait to support this until the issue addressed below about the "Reception" section is more resolved as there are some sticky areas with prose there that I agree need to be further revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: I did make some changes in the "Critical response" section. Unfortunately Slightly mad wasn't satisfied with them. I did make some further changes based on his comments. Are there any further changes you'd like for me to make? PanagiotisZois (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made the following modifications to the reception section: edits. Feel free to revert them if you do not like the changes. Just trying to help out to improve that part. I will support this. I am not sure if the first paragraph of the reception section is entirely necessary though. Aoba47 (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Aoba. I really appreciate the help. As for the first paragraph, I think it should stay as it includes professional consesus sites that immediately give the reader a general overview of the film's reception. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad that I could offer at least some assistance as I know that you have worked a lot on this. And your reasoning makes sense to me. Good luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Slightlymad[edit]

Oppose from Slightlymad 05:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From Slightlymad

Fancy seeing this thing again as a FA candidate. Here are a new quibbles:

Development

  • That lengthy quote by the director could probably just be a blockquote
  • Changed.

Casting

  • For what it's worth, photos of relevant actors are worthy of inclusion here. If you're a Photoshop geek, that is, try to do like what has been done in another FA: Tenebrae.
  • Instead of combining two free images I simply put them seperately. I used Winstead since she's the films protagonist and Todd, as he's the only cast member to return, albeit in a voice-only role. PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
*I would source Tony Todd's film appearance, and add alt texts to these photos. SLIGHTLYmad 03:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added alt text to both of them though I'm not sure if the description is satisfactory.
  • Second sentence is still unsourced, or is it? SLIGHTLYmad 09:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourced.

Filming and effects

  • "Filming for the film wrapped" is awkward-sounding and a little alliterate (yes, pun intended); "wrapped" doesn't read professionally, either. SO fix.
  • Took me a second to notice :P. Fixed.

Music

  • The opening sentence uses the word "composed" twice.
  • Fixed.

Critical response:

  • The CinemaScore audience consensus needs an independent source as Twitter is generally not supported as a RS per WP:UGC.
  • The problem with CinemaScore is that I had previously linked to the website itself but another user brought up the fact that in order to find the film's score, one had the write the film's name in the search bar. For this reason I decided to replace it with a more direct citation. Also, Twitter can be considered reliable when it's a verified account etc. And yes, while the Twitter account doesn't have that little "Verified" blue check mark, it is in fact theirs. If you go to CinemaScore's website and click on their Twitter account it bring you here. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to pull your leg here, but let's say they're indeed reliable, what makes Twitter "high-quality" then apart from its verification badge? SLIGHTLYmad 03:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I fully understand the question.
  • It means that despite Twitter's reliability, you will still have to explain how it's high quality as per the FA criteria. Same goes to BuzzFeed and Amazon sources—what makes these reliable? SLIGHTLYmad 09:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well according to WP:Twitter, since the Twitter account of CinemaScore is posting information in regards to itself, it is considered acceptable. If you want I could simply re-add CinemaScore's website citation. As for Amazon, I don't I need to explain why the number one retailed in the United States (and probably worldwide) is high quality. As for BuzzFeed... does the fact the The Huffington Post's chairman co-founded it help its case?
  • Apologies, but the CinemaScore still needs be sourced independently as I think it's been an established practise to do so. Take Dunkirk, for example. SLIGHTLYmad 11:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried finding an alternate source for the CinemaScore but wasn't able to, on either Google or an archive website. To be honest I don't see what the problem with citing the primary source is. I mean, for the Rotten Tomatoes scores we don't need to cite an article that tells us what score the film got, we just cite the website itself. If there ever was an article giving the film's score, it's long dead and unfrotunately, not archived. Also, most movies that provide the CinemaScore with an independent citation are from like, 2010 onwards. Many older films simply cite the main website.
  • This section is really eyesore and needs organization. I'm no longer accustomed with the usual A gave B a score of C / A said B and directly quoting just out of laziness. Have a look at this essay and study the examples there as it brings up interesting points in order to make this section a fine read. For better results, you must study all the reviews. (The first paragraph should stay, however, since RT and Metacritic scores are pretty standard to report on film articles.) Finally, you must emphasize here the fact that you say in the lede that the film was "formulaic and did not bring anything new to the franchise," and "praised for being enjoyable and offering its audience what it wishes to see," on whether these were widespread opinions among critics, and not just by a single reviewer. I reiterate that it's really important to study all these reviews for better judgement, as well as that essay I give you.
  • @Slightlymad:OK lets see, excluding the first paragraph which is about website scores, the three paragraphs are about: negative reviews, positive ones and "other", death scenes and acting. Each one begins by hinting at what the nature of each paragraph and what it's about. I get that I should avoid overusing quotations and must paraphrase more. How should I proceed from this point? PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well have you began with a draft? Just be vigilant in avoiding OR on each topic sentences; as you can see in the True Detective (season 1) example, everything is sourced. And for the most part, the section reads seamlessly, and hopefully the same would be done to this article. SLIGHTLYmad 04:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Slightlymad: Alright, I've changed the paragraphs to be explicit about a specific subject. First one is about plot and strucute, while the second one is about the death scenes and entertainment. The third is solely about the actors' performances.

PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, but I'm still unsatisfied with what you did here as not much has really changed; for instance, you signpost each paragraphs with topic sentences which more or less could be original research since they're unsourced; and it still adopts the similar structure of Author from publication gave a positive/negative review which reads tiresome and repetitive. In other words, you did a half-assed job here. I really think a lot more time should be dedicated to produce similar results that the essay demands. And for that, I will have to gently oppose the nomination until this is resolved.
  • Reviews from the late Roger Ebert are never left out in this section since he has been immortalized as a highly reliable film critic in America: [2]. Here are a few high-quality reviews: [3], [4], [5]
  • Roger Eberts review of the film is already there. BTW, thanks for the new reviews :D. Will add them after I've improved the "Reception" section.

Accolades

  • This table is too skimpy I would just convert it into prose. I believe I raised this concern in the article's talk, but you chose to willfully ignore it for some reason...
  • Done. For some reason, even though I saw "I'd" my brain kept reading that as "I'll", so I just kept wondering why you didn't end up changing it.

General prose comments

  • This one should be the last thing on your mind, but check the prose if they observe proper logical quotation.
  • Checked, doesn't seem to be a problem. I left out the "Critical response" section as I'm gonna rework it.
  • I notice that you often begin sentences—especially in the Production section—with "In the DVD" / According to DVD interviews". No need to tell readers that; just be direct and get to educating them.
  • Rewrote a few things but in previews reviews, users suggested that I state who made these remarks, so I can't just remove all of them.

Otherwise, looks good. SLIGHTLYmad 04:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kindly read my reply above in case you're wondering why I opposed the nomination outright. One final thought: while it's not for me to decide who should review the sources, I recommend pinging the editor who had opposed the source review from the previous FA for assurance that their issue has been resolved. Thank you for your effort. Slightlymad 05:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Slightlymad: I've made a few further changes in the reception section with the help of two other editors. It definately looks better now. Is there anything else that you'd like for me to change; hopefuly change your mind along the way? PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

Sources review from Brianboulton
  • There are several italicization issues in the footnotes. Publication details should only be italicized if the source originates from a print medium – newspaper, journal, magazine etc. This is not the case with ref 18 (604 Now), 33 (DVD Active), 40 (Netflix life), 57 (Den of Geek), 60 (DVD Reviews) and possibly others I've missed.
  • OK I get that. But if that's the case then how come when using "|website=" in the template it automatically converts in to italics?
  • @Brianboulton: I checked through them and I'm pretty sure every website's title is non-italicized in the references. Ad for Den of Geek, since it's a publication of a magazine company I believe it should be italicized. Additionally, I checked the manual of style in regard to writing and apparently with specific websites that are neither part of a print publication, nor do they have a page at Wikipedia, the matter of whether they should be in italics or not is a case to case basis. Now if you wish for them to remain unitalicized I have no problem with that but I'd prefer if DVD Reviews was in italics, otherwise it looks like, well, dvd reviews.
  • Ref 20: Scoring Sessions – what makes this a reliable source?
  • Well, the creator of the website, Dan Goldwasser, was editor-in-chief of Soundtrack.net for more that ten years. Moreover, the article does contain images, include those of the "gore-o-meter", to ensure the information presented there is verifiable.
  • Ref 33: DVD Active – what makes this a reliable source? Also, where does the source support the statement cited to it in the article?
  • Removed and replaced with the Dread Central reference which refers to the extended police-station scene.
  • Ref 36: ComingSoon.net – what makes this a reliable source?
  • Removed.
  • Ref 74: What's the difference between "AOL Moviefone" here, and "Moviefone" in ref 10? In any event, AOL Moviefone should not be italicized.
  • Fixed it. Don't know how I missed that; I think the "AOL Moviefone" reference was there before I started workinng on the article. I checked and both of them are just Moviefone. I assume the former reference had AOL written in is because they own Moviefone.

Otherwise, the sources seem reliable and appropriate to the subject. Brianboulton (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: So, are the sources good? PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fine. Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

Comments from Jaguar
  • I think we should link Death in the plot section too.
  • Added the little guy in.
  • "On Winstead, he said that "[she brought] a kind of soulfulness to her role as Wendy" and Wendy "is deeply affected by the accident, but she's strong, and fights to maintain control"" - repetition of 'Wendy' how about replacing the unquoted Wendy with her character?
  • Done.
  • "During read-throughs, he often asked Morgan about Ian's facts; to help him, Morgan wrote Lemche notes and gave him URLs to research the information Ian gives out."" - stray quote mark at the end
  • Thanks for picking that out. Removed it.
  • "who appeared in the television films It (1990) and Carrie (2002)" - wasn't It a miniseries for television? Not quite sure on this, feel free to ignore
  • You are correct about It; I could jut remove the phrase "the television films".
  • "Custom-designed coaster cars were created and customized" - repetition of 'custom'. How about removed customized so the sentence reads like Custom-designed coaster cars were created based on events in the script?
  • Switched customized to modified. Hope that reads well.
  • All images are properly licensed under their fair use rationales, as is the non-free use cover image. I couldn't find any issues with the images, so all is well here

This article has improved by leaps and bounds since its last review. I realised during reading this that I've actually seen this film before! I was going to do a source review but was beaten to it—my late arrival to this FAC explains the scarce amount of comments but I'm confident this is meeting the FA criteria. Will support once all of the above are clarified. JAGUAR  10:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: I changed everything except That (sorry, lame joke) part cause I want your imput first. And to some extend about the coaster cars as well. BTW, did you enjoy the movie? PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did enjoy it. I was reminded by reading "premonitions" in the plot section and then I thought, "oh yes, this was the film". I don't know why this received mixed reviews, but I suppose critics have their own different opinions. Anyway, I've read through the article one more time and couldn't find any glaring issues, so I'll be happy to lend my support. Good work with this! JAGUAR  11:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jaguar. :) PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from J Milburn[edit]

I supported last time around after spending a while with the article, and I would like to see this promoted. Have all of the problems identified last time around by Ealdgyth been resolved? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: Since the last nomination I have made some changes based on Ealdgyth's comments, like removing the stock picture websites, DVD Talk and fixing the CinemaScore link. If you are suggesting that I ping her to take a look at the sources... I'd rather not. Looking at her comments, it's pretty clear that she's not very familiar with film (and more specifically, horror) related websites and publishers. Nor does she consider RT-approved critics to be good enough. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Laser brain[edit]

Good luck with your nomination! --Laser brain (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Although this FAC has two supports, it has been open for two-and-a-half months, and there is an oppose standing. I'm also not convinced that Ealdgyth's concerns from the last FAC have been addressed, and am a little concerned by the reluctance of the nominator to ask her to have a look. In any case, there is no consensus to promote this article and therefore I will be archiving shortly. Sarastro (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Final_Destination_3/archive2&oldid=1138460685"