Wikipedia:Peer review/Trilogy of Terror/archive1

Trilogy of Terror edit

I'd appreciate another set of eyes upon this article based on the 1975 'made for television' horror movie that scared me senseless as a child (Amelia in particluar). Any suggestions on how this article can improve are welcomed. -- Longhair 12:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad, but I would suggest removing POV terms, like "stunning" and "classic," or otherwise giving a citation for them. On that note, more in-line citations would be nice (see WP:CITE), especially in "Reception" and "Popular culture." You could probably move "Production credits" to the end or just delete those without Wikipedia articles (IMDb certainly would have those you cut). My biggest complaint, however, is that the summaries are really choppy to read and that the disctinction between "Plot" and "Synopsis" seems forced in most of them. Perhaps reorganize them into a section called "Synopses" or some such with one spoiler warning at the top and a single subsection heading for each installment? Also, perhaps the "DVD" section could be beefed up or put elsewhere (e.g., the lead)?--Monocrat 13:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the article in regards to the POV issues and began using WP:CITE. Production credits are now at the ending of the article and delinked as suggested. I'm still in the air about the Synopsis sections and may look around at other similar films to see what's being done there. Thanks for your help to date. It's been great. -- Longhair 05:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. One of my major problems with this article was getting the flow correct. Three movies in one made it somewhat difficult to provide a plot and synopsis section without them running into each other and causing one big confusing mess. I've taken the rest of your valuable advice on board and will continue to edit accordingly. Thanks again. -- Longhair 13:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I stand firm on the reorganization, but at the very least I would have only one spoiler warning, because those really break up the article in my estimation. Good luck!--Monocrat 12:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy _t 15:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. In this case '1975' and '1996'. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, good start. Take a look at these Featured Articles for some ideas on organization: Gremlins, Halloween (film), Tenebrae (film). As you mentioned above, you will have to adapt this article to the unique format of the film, however, since it is essentially three films in one this will be tricky. Your current arrangement is somewhat distracting (mostly because of the spoiler notices; I think one tag under the TOC would suffice). Good luck. Dmoon1 05:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]