Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Destination 3/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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) 21:07, 27 February 2018 [1].

Final Destination 3

edit
Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Final Destination 3, the third film in the eponymous franchise about seriously unlucky individuals starring Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Wendy Christensen. In the film, Wendy has a vision while at an amusement park that the roller-coaster she and her classmates are on derailing. While she saves some of them, as always, Death comes running to collect the survivors' lives. The film did well financially and got mixed reviews from critics who praised its tone, death scenes and Winstead's performance but criticized it for being formulaic.

This is my third FA nomination of the article. I withrew the first one in August due to personal issues and the second one got little attention so it was archived back in November (at least I think it was November, anyway). Hopefully, third time (un)lucky.

Fun fact. One of the DVD versions called "Thrill Ride Edition" actually turns the film into a "Choose Your Own Adventure", allowing you to make various choices throughout the story. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Andrzejbanas

edit
Comments from Andrzejbanas

Just checking a bit:

  • Is there some format for the characters in the plot to be linked to the List of Characters page each time? Linking to Wendy Christensen is fine, but linking every character to the List of Final Destination characters seems a bit of an overkill to me, when you have the information ready in the link above.
  • While it is true that besides Wendy, all other characters lack their own articles, I still feel it's for the best to leave the links in as they immediatelly take the reader to the specific character's section of the page. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind. Removed them. :P
  • "According to director James Wong, unlike the second film, which was closely tied to the first, Final Destination 3 was envisioned as a stand-alone sequel featuring new characters from the beginning" I understand what is being said here, but its a weirdly written. "According to director James Wong, Final Destination 3 was envisioned as a stand-alone sequel featuring new characters and would ignore the continuity between the first two films." Not sure if mine is better, but I think bouncing between the second, the first and back to the third makes it a slightly jarring sentence. :)
  • "The film was initially intended to be [shot] in 3D, but plans for this were abandoned.[6] Morgan revealed that the this was due to financial reasons, but also because he believed that fire and blood would not be shown properly in the red color filters of anaglyph 3D.[7]" I tried re-phrasing this a bit.
  • The source for the home media's date and release in widescreen and fullscreen seems to be the dvd itself. No home video I've ever bought contains details on when it was released (sadly!), could you get a better source for that?
  • I do not think the death image passes fair use. Just illustrating something that is being discussed here. I have not seen this film, but the image itself does not make me understand why this stands out more. WP:FILMNFI sums it up better than I can, stating . "A non-free image can be used to illustrate the target element of the critical commentary only if it cannot adequately be substituted by a free equivalent image or descriptive text. The non-free image should be significant in increasing the readers' understanding of the topic. Non-free images can illustrate technical or thematic aspects of the film. Examples include, but are not limited to: production design, makeup, costume design, camera technique, visual effects, lighting, and iconic shots." Maybe iconic shots falls under this...but just from the image (and the text for that matter), I do not understand what makes this death scene so strong. :/ As an example of when to apply these things, the article I wrote about House (1977 film) has one that I think is acceptable. Star Trek: First Contact also has some good examples.
  • That could work, if it somehow got incorporated into something like "The scene utilizes logics of temperature, color, and light to realize the deaths of the characters, as well as to allow Wendy to recognize the threat that they face." I'm not really sure if that image can fit in. To sum up the image rules more easily, its best to have an image that is showcasing something that can not be described by text. It fills a gap. Currently with the "best death" scene, which I do not doubt that they did this, but this image doesn't really suggest why it is that way. For that matter, the prose does not really either. :/ Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Andrzejbanas: That's actually a really great idea. Maybe I could combine the already existing image of Ashley's death with another one that shows the picture Wendy took of her and Ashlyn at the carnival. Both of them use color, light and temperature to show / imply death. Whaddaya say? Granted if I did that I'd like to still use at least two of the references in the "Reception" section to enhance the third parapgraph about the positive response to the death scenes. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll investigate it a bit more later, but that's all I got for now. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas: Alright, I added another image and moved them up to the "Themes" section. How is it looking now? PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! I think its much better this way prose and explanation wise. Glad we got to save the image and add some interesting content here. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrzejbanas: Awesome :D. Now that that's done, is there anything else that needs improving? PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I'll try to give this one more read-through tonight. :) Sorry for the delays, I appreciate your patience with it!Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can not see anything else that is really standing out for me. This has my Support. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :D PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

edit
Comments from Aoba47
  • For the phrase “worked on the franchise’s first film in 2000”, I think that you could reduce the link to just “first film”, but this is up to you.
  • Done. I didn't see it necessary but in a previous nomination someone asked it.
  • Are you using the Oxford comma throughout the article? I have found a few instances in which it is used (i.e. a shelf falls, trapping them inside, and the girls are burned alive) and it is not used (i.e. includes commentaries, documentaries, a deleted scene and an original animated video).
  • @Aoba47: To be fully honest I don't think I'd ever heard of the Oxford comma before. If I use a comma before a conjunction it's most likely because I'm trying the make the overall sentences easier to understand. At least I hope they're easier to understand. Should I change them?
  • An Oxford comma is one used in a list of three; here is an example with it (x, y, and z) and an example without it (x, y and z). I personally prefer the Oxford comma, but it is really up to you. You just need to be consistent one way or the other as I have noticed instances of both examples used in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part “offering its audience what it wishes to see”, would this phrasing “fulfilling its audience’s expectations” be stronger and more concise language?
  • Much better. Thank you.
  • I would combine the following two sentences “Attention was given especially to death scenes involving a tanning bed and a nail gun respectively; these were favorably received, as was Winstead's performance.” into this “Positive attention was given specifically to the death scenes involving a tanning bed and a nail, as well as Winstead’s performance.”.
  • Once again, much better.
  • I do not believe that you need to link the characters again in the “Cast” section as they are all already linked in the “Plot” section. I do not think that you need link the characters again in the “Casting” subsection. It seems like a lot of overlinking to me.
  • Removed all the links except for Wendy.
  • For this sentence “The film was edited by Chris G. Willingham, the Emmy-winning editor of 24 (2001–2010)”, I would add a short descriptive phrase in front of 24.
  • Added that it's a crime / spy series.
  • If you want to keep the tan bed death screenshot, then I would recommend looking for resources that talk about the cinematography and visual style to further support its use. The following Dobbs’ quote "brightly coloured [and] slightly silly meditation on how we're all gonna die one day, so we might as well do it explosively" could be a good start.
  • I would move the “Analysis” section before the “Production” section and renaming it to themes. See the article for Fight Club as an example. It seems pretty standard practice for film articles to be structured this way from my brief exploration of other featured articles on films.
  • Placed it between the "Cast" and "Production" sections.
  • When you mention Mouse Trap, I would clarify that you mean the game.
  • Done.

Wonderful work with this article. Once all of my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any comments on my current FAC. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support this for promotion. You have done wonderful work with this article; it is a very interesting and informative read! Makes me want to work on a proper film article for a change lol. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Aoba. :D I'm glad you find the article interesting but more importantly, informative. I hope anyone who hasn't seen the movie and comes across the article will be interested in it. And I'm pretty sure you could easily improve a film article if you wanted to. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Ref 3: The words "Page 2" do not form part of the title
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 7: Likewise
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 8: Likewise ("Page 3")
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 13: I can't see anything to indicate that "New Line Cinema" is the publisher. In the case of the first source (Gloria Davies) the main link provides no publisher details; the archive link seems to show the publisher as "HollywoodJesus", but also displays a 404 error message. In the second source, the publisher seems to be "2006 Movie Releases"
  • That one's actually a little complicated. The text within the file itself doesn't actually state who wrote it. However, I used PDF Reader and was able to find the information regarding the author.
  • Following your reorganisation, this is now ref 26. It is the publisher, rather than the author, that I am questioning; there is nothing to indicate that "New Line Cinema" is the publisher of the Davies article and, as I say above, the archive link gives different publisher information, as well as yielding a 404 message. Neither is there anytning to show that New line Cinema is the publisher of the reference's second source. Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 23: The publisher is The Oklahoman – NewsOK is the website name.
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 24: Neither the main link nor the archive go to the page you indicate.
  • Really? I just checked and the archive link seems fine.
  • This is now 38, and I'm getting the same rubbish as I got before. What, exactly, are you getting from the main and archive links?

Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 42: Why is Chicago Sun-Times named as publisher. Should be "Ebert Digital LLC"
  • Chicago Sun-Times is placed under the "newspaper=" code.
  • There's nothing in the source that refers to the Chicago Sun-Times. Whether or not that paper ever printed the article is irrelevant – the version you are using is hosted by the Ebert website, which should be credited as your publisher. Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed.
  • Ref 53: What makes this a high quality reliable source? I'm worried by the mis-spelling of "patron" which looks amateurish.
  • Is that the James Berardinelli reference?
  • Ref 72: The page range require an ndash, not a hyphen
  • I think I changed it.

Otherwise sources seem to be in good order and of appropriate reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Okay, I fixed some of the references but I still need to discuss the PDF file, the website and the "patron" reference. Possibly also the hyphen one. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: Maybe not the last reference but definately the other three. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: I guess that mean support ? OK, good, thanks. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not register supports or opposes when doing source reviews. Brianboulton (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG

edit
Comments from FrB.TG

An enjoyable film, and I liked some of the death scenes, especially of the girls in the tanning beds.

  • "Casting began in March 2005, with Winstead and Merriman landing the lead roles, and concluded in April" - with + noun + verb+ing is best avoided at FA articles. I would actually take out "with Winstead and Merriman landing the lead roles" as it is pretty obvious they landed the lead roles.
  • I place the "Winstead and Merriman" part in these lines (–) as I still think it's somewhat important. But if you feel it's unnecessary then I'll remove them.
  • "Final Destination 3 was filmed in Vancouver" - probably worth mentioning that Vancouver is a city in Canada since the film is American.
  • That's true. I still am not sure why so many American films and TV shows are filmed there. I think it's cheaper. Maybe, I don't. Anyway, added it in.
  • "the film was released on February 10, 2006, in the United States" - I find the comma after 2006 unnecessary.
  • Removed it.
  • "franchise while others praised it for being enjoyable and fulfilling its audience’s expectations" - we don't use that apostrophe in Wikipedia. ' is more preferrable.
  • Honestly, I have no idea how that got there. Maybe I added it on my phone. Irregardles, fixed it.
  • "They include Kevin; best friends Ashley Freund and Ashlyn Halperin" - the section link for Ashley and Ashlyn goes nowhere.
  • Fixed that.
  • "Wendy learns that her sister Julie and a friend had also been on the roller coaster but got" - be consistent with putting commas after but's.
  • Comma added.
  • "characterized by their move away from the typical horror antagonist and towards the certainty and inevitability of death" - I think toward is generally more preferable in American English (e.g. "Scientists are moving toward the conclusion" here or "One inning Tuesday went a long way toward erasing" here), but I don't think it is that big of a deal.
  • Removed the "s".

Down to the end of Themes section. I hope that you consider reviewing Anne Hathaway, which is also currently at FAC. FrB.TG (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Alright, I changed everything you wanted. Have you seen the rest of the article? On a sidenote, I check Anne's article, and will hopefully start the review in a couple of days. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to director James Wong, Final Destination 3 was envisioned as a stand-alone sequel featuring new characters from the beginning, unlike the second film which was closely tied to the first film and continued its story,[16] stating:" - the "stating" part looks like FD3 is giving a statement. "He stated" should be much better.
  • Changed.
  • "[W]e really felt that the idea of Final Destination..." Italicize Final Destination. I don't recall any MoS rule advising against using italics in quotes.
  • Italicized it.
  • "Morgan revealed" - no reveal pls.
  • Changed one to "stated" and the other to "declared".
  • "On Winstead, he said that "[she brought] a kind of soulfulness to her role ... control." Citation after direct quote even if it means repeating them.
  • I think I changed it correctly.
  • "Sam Easton, who appeared in Miramax's film Underclassman (2005), played school alumnus Frankie Cheeks. Gina Holden played Kevin's girlfriend and Wendy's best friend, Carrie Dreyer" - played in close proximity.
  • Changed it to "portrayed".
  • "Like the first two installments of the Final Destination series, Final Destination 3 was shot in Vancouver." Per my above comment on Vancouver.
  • Everyone always forgets about Canada. :(
  • " Filming concluded in July but due to negative reception towards" - now that you have changed it to toward, I suggest sticking to it throughout the article.
  • Removed the "s". I also checked to make sure "towardS" didn't exist anywhere else in the article.
  • "Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times wrote that the film's" - I don't think Ebert reviewed this in Chicago Sun-Times; just "Roger Ebert wrote" should suffice.
  • Done.
  • Done.

@FrB.TG: OK, I made all the changes. Hopefully they're satisfactory. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Let’s hope that third time’s the charm for Final Destination 3. FrB.TG (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough, that's exactly what the back of my Greek DVD of the film says. Thank you for the support. :D As I said, I'll try looking at Anne's article within this week. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commets regarding images

edit

WRT image review, I see that both I and Laser brain reviewed them so no full image review, but it seems like one image was not reviewed:

  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Yeah, I added that image pretty recently. As you might notice, the image of Ashley and Ashlyn is a littler red at the bottom-right, covering a small portion of the photograph. This makes it appear as if the two girls are on fire, which is how they end up dying. It's what the film scholar stated about "light and temperature" being used to signify and realize their deaths. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ArturSik

edit

Support on prose. A well-written article that reads like a really good book. Great job. P.S. I've actually skipped the "Plot" section because the lead made me want to watch the film and I didn't want to spoil it (am I allowed to give my support in that case?). ArturSik (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ArturSik: Aw, thank you. I'm really glad you liked reading the article. I'm especially glad that reading it made you want to watch the film. :D But I'm not sure if you can give a support without reading the entire article. Maybe you can place your support on hold, watch the film, and then read the "Plot" section. It's a pretty easy film to find online. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I've read the entire article and I give my support. Well done:) ArturSik (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

I'll do the source review:

  • All urls are archived
  • They appear to be reliable sources based on the fact they have authors
  • Most publisher and works have wikilinks

I'll give it a quick pass. If possible could you do the source review of this FAC? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to do one within a few days. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AmericanAir88

edit

@PanagiotisZois:

  • You mention the "Thrill Ride Edition" but only bring up one scenario; Saving all four from getting on the rollercoaster. Could you perhaps provide details on other scenes?
  • I think that doing so would unnecessarily expand the "home media" section. Besides, most of the changes only affect that characters' death scenes; in some instances, the changes are so mininmal, they change less that five seconds. The only choice that is really worth mentioning is the alternate ending that ends the film 30 minutes in. I guess I could clarify that the scenes affected are the death scenes.
  • That works.
  • OK, I've clarified that the altered scenes have to do with the death scenes. I also took the liberty of clarifying who the four character that get off the coaster in the alternate ending are.
  • The "Box Office" sections become run-on.
  • They're many sentences containing how it "Drops". There also contains 4 sentences with grossing which could easily be paraphrased.

AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @AmericanAir88: I switched some of the instances where "gross" or "grossing" is used with synonym nouns / noun phrases. Regarding the numerous sentences about the film "dropping rank" in the box office; it's not so much as about the fact the film dropped rank. Otherwise I'd have to include every weekend in there. It's just that the first three weeks are important because that's when the film was in the top ten, dropping from that position in the fourth weekend. And as with opening weekends, the final weekends are always important. And to be honest, I'm kind of warry that if we remove some of the sentences the entire paragraph will be too minimal. PanagiotisZois (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fantastic. Looks good

Very well written article, this is a definite support after these are addressed AmericanAir88 (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also it would mean a lot to me if you could address and make comments on my FAC. AmericanAir88 (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into it within this week. PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Deckiller

edit

Oppose—1a and 2a. The lead is fairly long and not "concise" per 2a. You can probably trim this entire section: "The idea of featuring a roller-coaster derailment as the opening-scene disaster came from New Line Cinema executive Richard Bryant. From the beginning, Wong and Morgan placed control as a major theme in the film. Casting began in March 2005–Winstead and Merriman landing the lead roles–and concluded in April." Remember that the lead section "[prepares] us for the detail in the subsequent sections"; it does not need to explain entire subsections.

The prose needs work. Here are a few examples that demonstrate the need for greater scrutiny:

"Following its premiere at Grauman's Chinese Theatre on February 2, 2006 the film was released on February 10, 2006, in the United States." — missing comma after 2006.
"...and an original animated video" — redundancy here. Try the opposite: "...and an unoriginal animated video". In this context that seems highly unlikely.
"A special-edition DVD called "Thrill Ride Edition" was also released with the "Choose Their Fate" feature. This acts as an interactive film, allowing viewers to make decisions at specific points in the film that alter the course of the story." this can be worded better; the relationship between the DVD and the feature is a little vague. Changing "was also released with the" to "included a" tightens the entire section and eliminates some of the vagueness. You can then turn the second sentence into a dependent clause.
"As they leave, they see the roller coaster derail, killing the remaining passengers, leaving Wendy devastated" — for an article/writing style that underuses commas, this sentence surprised me. Why not reword the second part to "...killing the remaining passengers and leaving Wendy devastated" for better flow?
"Ashley and Ashlyn are later killed at a tanning salon when a chain reaction causes them to become trapped in over-heating tanning beds." — "later" is redundant. "Causes them to become trapped" is possibly too verbose. If the chain reaction is what traps them, just say it: "...when a chain reaction traps them in over-heating..."
"...for fulfilling its audience's expectations". — potentially misleading. Were people saying that it satisfied the entire audience, or just themselves?
"As she is getting off..." — vague term. Try "As she disembarks"
"Wendy later learns that her sister Julie and a friend also left the roller coaster, and rushes to the county fair to save them." — "later" is redundant.
"She and Kevin are able to prevent Julie from being impaled on a harrow after she is dragged by a panicked horse and Wendy asks Julie who was sitting next to her on the roller coaster, since they are next on Death's list." — "are able to" is redundant. This sentence is overlong and meandering, especially since the article's writing style omits quite a lot of commas.
"Frankie dies next at a drive-through, when a runaway truck crashes into the back of Kevin's truck," — it's not a big issue, but you can omit "next".
"she starts to see more omens" — one of several examples of overly plain language. Why not use something more robust and succinct like "she experiences more omens"?
"Three modes of critical response to the Final Destination franchise have predominated." — "modes" seems like an awkward word to use in this context. I'm not an expert on this series or film criticism in general, but this word didn't sit right with me.
"According to the site's consensus, "Final Destination 3 is more of the same: gory and pointless, with nowhere new to go." — you already wrote out "Final Destination 3" in the previous sentence, so you can adjust the quite accordingly: "...consensus, the film "is more of the same..."
"At the 2007 Saturn Awards it was nominated for Best Horror Film, with the "Thrill Ride Edition" being nominated for Best DVD Special Edition Release." — noun plus -ing error in the second clause. Try "...and the "Thrill Ride Edition" was nominated for..."

I'm looking forward to seeing the revisions. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 03:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help in fixing these AmericanAir88 (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AA, @Deckiller: I believe your comments have been changed everything accordingly. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely looks better. I'll take a closer look this weekend. Have you considered trimming the lead a bit? It's quite long (per 2a) but conventions may have changed since 2010. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Deckiller: I did check and apparently, 2a) doesn't give a specific length for the lead section. Additionally, I read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, which basically states that lead sections should have around four paragraphs with very few citations within them. Having looked at both of those things, I'd say the length and information provided within the lead section and satisfactory and doesn't go overboard, turning into "info dump". PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Deckiller: Is the review still happening or not? PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose:@Sarastro1: Deckiller's probable continuation of his review notwithstanding, how does the article look now? PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments: Deckiller mentioned prose as an issue that needs closer scrutiny. I've not seen that anyone has further reviewed it, and a quick look reveals a few more issues. For example, we have overlinking (e.g. premonition, omen and arguable terms like "drive through"); there is inconsistent use of commas, for example after subordinate clauses or when there are adverbials at the start of a sentence; "Three methods of critical response to the Final Destination franchise have predominated" does not seem quite right as critical response is not a method; "This makes the films inconsistent with many analyses of horror, according to which horror films require a monster" doesn't really make sense. Therefore, we are not really ready to promote yet. I'm reluctant to archive with so many supports, but Deckiller has raised valid issues over the FAC criteria. At the very least, we need further review of criterion 1a. Sarastro (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if one, some or all of Mike Christie, HJ Mitchell, John or Laser brain could have a look at the prose? Sarastro (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

edit

I'm seeing prose problems too. Here's a paragraph from the reception section:

"The story was described by several critics as formulaic when compared to the previous installments; Roger Ebert wrote that the film's main issue was its predictability and lack of tension as it was "clear to everyone who must die and in what order". The narrative was negatively compared to the franchise's second installment by Variety as lacking "narrative intricacy". The New York Times similarly described the film as lacking the "novelty of the first [or] the panache of the second". The downtime between characters' deaths was perceived as "dull" by TV Guide, who highlighted it as one reason why the film failed to match the formula set out by the previous installments. Other reviewers were more positive: IGN praised the story, with Chris Carle writing that the "formula has been perfected rather than worn out" by the third film. Even though they felt the film primarily adhered to the structure set out by the rest of the franchise, Empire and The Guardian found the story to be enjoyable."
  • The narrative was negatively compared to the franchise's second installment by Variety as lacking "narrative intricacy": The repetition of "narrative" is ugly; "the franchise's second installment" is a bit long-winded; and the sentence structure could be simplified and made active rather than passive. The Variety reviewer is echoing Ebert's comments about the simple plot, and the connection should be explicitly made: "Similarly, Variety described the film as "desultorily plotted" and compared it unfavourably with Final Destination 2." Then you can roll in the NYT comment to strengthen the point: "Similarly, Variety described the film as "desultorily plotted"; and both Variety and the New York Times compared it unfavourably with its predecessors".
  • The downtime between characters' deaths was perceived as "dull" by TV Guide, who highlighted it as one reason why the film failed to match the formula set out by the previous installments. Again a bit longwinded, and passive voice. You do have to resort to passive voice in reception sections, but it's best to avoid it where possible. How about: "TV Guide found the sequences between the death scenes dull". This is a little staccato, standing on its own, so you might consider joining it to either the previous or following sentence, though it might be difficult to make if flow smoothly. Looking at the source, I see "The downtime between deaths has never been duller, and the Rube Goldberg-type death scenes are so poorly staged that it's difficult to figure out what's about to happen and to whom. Details coagulate into confusing, suspenseless blurs that are suddenly punctuated by gory punch lines in which a head pops like a pimple and bodies are sliced, diced and squished into bloody smears." The second half of this directly contradicts the start of the next paragraph, about positive reception for the death scenes.

Oppose. I've looked through the points made by Deckiller and Sarastro1 above, and I agree with them. Along with the problems in the one paragraph I picked from the reception section, I feel the article fails 1a. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: With two opposes, I'm afraid we have no consensus to promote here. Prose issues remain and I think the best solution for the article is to archive this FAC now. It can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period, and in that time I would recommend having the article copy-edited by someone familiar with prose expectations at FA level. Sarastro (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: No consesus? Really? 5-2 seems pretty leaning. Both of the opposes are about the prose. Regarding that, someone already has started copyediting the article. As for Deckiller, I've already made changes to the articles weeks ago based on his comments, but he never replied. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2018 (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/archive3&oldid=827996165"