Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Destination 3/archive4

< 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2018 [1].

Final Destination 3

edit
Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final Destination 3 is the third installment of the eponymous franchise. It was released in 2006 and stars Mary Elizabeth Winstead as high-schooler and photographer Wendy Christensen. It also saw James Wong and Glen Morgan return as directors and co-writers from the first film after being absent during the second. After Wendy has a vision of Devil's Flight derailing, the roller-coaster she and her friends are on, she manages to save some of them. Unfortunately, soon afterwards, Death starts hunting them down. The film made quite a bunch of money during its run, almost five times its budget, and got mixed reviews from critics. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Serial Number 54129

edit

Comments by Mojo0306

edit

Comments from Vedant

edit

I try and help with film related articles and biographies, so I'll try and take a look soon. 04:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC) Some observations:

  • You could avoid the repetition of Final Destination 3 in close proximity in the second paragraph of the lead.
    • Changed it.
  • "This makes them inconsistent with many analyses of horror films, according to which they require a monster." - This sentence is awkwardly phrased.
    • Tried to make it more clear.
  • The Development section uses a lot of "According to" statements​, which could get monotonous. You might want to try and very the sentence structure a little.
    • Changed them.
  • I don't know how the prior works of some of the actors add anything relevant to the casting section, it seems a little irrelevant. I would remove them, unless of course they had something to do with them getting cast in the film.
    • Removed most of them.
  • "Winstead and Merriman said the filming took three months, the first two weeks of which were spent filming the roller-coaster scene and the rest of the filming was done out of sequence." - You could easily split this.
    • Done.
  • "The cast members often rehearsed with each other for better on-screen chemistry." - How is this significant? I mean a lot of people rehearse with the fellow cast members.
    • Removed.
  • "The death of Ian McKinley" paragraph could use some simplification, but that might just be me.
    • It's definately not just you. I'll try making it simpler.
  • "Lee stated he enjoyed "being able to put [his] own darker spin on it for the movie"." Lee enjoyed would be just fine.
    • Done.
  • The Release section is really just jumping from one thought​ to another without any flow. Do we have any information on how the audience responded to the marketing strategies: the novel? and the website?
    • @Numerounovedant: I'm afraid I don't understand the first part of that sentence. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately no, I haven't been able to find any article or something similar about what fans / critics had to say about either the novelization or the website. Granted, the film is more that 10 years old, so even if an article like that did exist, it's long dead. I did try to change the paragraph a little so the flow from the website to the novel is better and more connected in regard to the film's promotion. I've seen other articles like Captain America: Civil War, where the "Marketing" and "Release" sections are separate, but considering how little information exists about both, I think it's more sensible to have them combined, with a chronological order. PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is better than before and I wouldn't push you to look for information that might not be there. I agree that there is no point in having separate sections. That said, the transition still may read staccato to some. It's alright though. VedantTalk 18:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to the Reception section later today. VedantTalk 07:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • A quick glance at the Reception section brought to notice the varying use of tenses: "Rotten Tomatoes reports ... CinemaScore reported". Make sure that tge tense remains consistent. VedantTalk 18:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • I don't think the quotes in "describing the third film as lacking "intricacy"" are required.
  • You also might want to attribute the review to the author and not the website.
  • There's no reason to have both the positive and negative reviews in the same paragraph. You can spilt them (maybe add another positive/mixed review and have an independent paragraph about the general praise) and start the second paragraph with an opening statement similar to "Other reviewers were more positive...".
  • "Empire and The Guardian found the story to be enjoyable" - In cases where multiple critics say similar things you could avoid naming all of them and write "Commentators found the story...:: I do think that you should considering rephrasing this as suggested.
  • Also, reviewers that have absolutely no notability do not need to be mentioned either, their claims can stay with in-line citations.
  • The idea of combining the tone and the death sequences in a paragraph is a little confusing. You might want to rearrange the section; the tone could go with the general praise and you could try and expand the repsonse to the death sequences as an independent paragraph.
  • Although, I understand that cast performances are not a priority in the genre, but a little more on the same could give the last paragraph more substance.
  • I'll look into some of the other reviews to add.

I'll take a look again once you have gone through my comments. Let me know if you have any concerns. VedantTalk 15:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Numerounovedant: Regarding the section—excluding the review aggregator websites—I originally had it like this: positive reviews, then negative reviews. However, user Slightlymad suggested that I rewrite the paragraphs so that I include what critics praised in one paragraph (the tone and death scenes) and what they criticized in the other (the film's plot being formulaic). I followed the example presented here. Additionally, constantly referring to "A said B, C said D" can get kind of repetetive. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, the reading of the section can obviously never make everyone happy, it's​ really subjective. That said, I do think that removing the names of the critics does not really solve the A said B, C said... problem it just transfers it from A of X publication said B, C from Y publication said... to Publication X said B, publication Y said... if that makes sense. corporating the opinions into the text is encouraged.
For instance: This "Variety compared the narrative negatively with the franchise's second installment, describing the third film as lacking intricacy.[58] The New York Times similarly described the film as lacking the "novelty of the first [or] the panache of the second"" could be: "Writers compared the narrative negatively with the franchise's earlier installments​ and felt that it lacked "intricacy".[citation] and the "novelty of the first [or] the panache of the second"[citation]".

Let me know how you feel. VedantTalk 06:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crap. I just realized I made a mistake. The above essay stated that constantly using "A of Publication B said C" is repetetive; which is why I tried to alter the structure or remove names when the publication is more notable (like Variety). As to the example you used with Variety and The New York Times, while I do think combining it her would work, I think it's important to have the names of the publications / critics, especially when they are notable. Moreover, I feel like trying this specific example (at least the first part of the sentence), is basically repeating what the beginning of the paragraph says. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, the idea was to lay it all out there. The discussion has produced varying versions for the section and I am almost okay with all of them. I'd leave it to you to chose what you see fit as you obviously know the article best. I do not think I'll support or oppose here, but this is a thorough article without any obvious deficiencies. I appreciate the work that you have put into the articles of the franchise! I am big fan (1 and 2 are my favorites!). Good luck getting this promoted, let me know if you need any further help. VedantTalk 15:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm sorry for coming off as uncooperative in regard to the "Reception" section. For what it's worth, I really appreciate your help on this article. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright, it was a great read! VedantTalk 05:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  • What makes CinemaBlend a high-quality reliable source? Scriptologist? Moviepilot? Ain't It Cool?
  • I'm concerned about the presence of close paraphrasing between the article and its sources. Compare for example "The death scenes required varying degrees of 2D and 3D graphic enhancement; the roller-coaster scene is composed of 144 visual-effect shots" with "All the death scenes required varying degrees of 2D and 3D enhancements. The roller coaster sequence alone comprised 144 vfx shots"
  • Conversely, some of the facts in the article don't line up with the sources. For example, the article claims that Winstead, Wong and Morgan went to the San Diego Comic-Con; however, the cited source states it was Winstead, Wong and Merriman.
    • Changed it.
  • Prose needs work for clarity and flow - for example, "The first two weeks of which were spent filming the roller-coaster scene and the rest of the filming was done out of sequence." Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Well, I looked through the references and didn't really find any sentences in the article that matched the ones in the references too much. I also looked at the overal article and changed a few things for more clarification or connect / flow better. Do you think it looks better now? PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To give you an example, "The death scenes required varying degrees of 2D and 3D graphic enhancement" is too close to "All the death scenes required varying degrees of 2D and 3D enhancements" - the difference between those two phrases is minimal. You may want to take a look through this Signpost article. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I still have no idea how else to write it. The whole section is pretty technical and I'm not an expert in the field. I tried to transfer it as best as I could. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess one can always just change the structure and voice of a sentence. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You might see if anyone at a relevant WikiProject knows enough of the subject matter to be able to help. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the only section with close paraphrasing? Cause I've checked the rest and I think they're okay. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ian Rose: & @Sarastro1:. I was wondering, could you archive this nomination? PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:47, 20 April 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/archive4&oldid=837623445"