Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Destination 3/archive1

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2017 [1].

Final Destination 3[edit]

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Final Destination 3, the third installment in 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. Interestingly, unlike its predecessor, which was a direct sequel to the first film, FD3 was always intenteded to be 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 realzes the pictures she took during the fair contain clues about their impending doom. (They never learn do they?)

I got the article to GA-status back in March and had it copyedited in April. Since then I've made a few changed / additions and fixed all of the references, ensuring that there are no duplicates and all of them contain their archive links; among other things. After all of that work I believe the article has finally reached the point where it meets the FA criteria. I look forward to people's feedback on further improving the article. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Aoba47[edit]

Resolved comments from Aoba47
  • @PanagiotisZois: Just wanted to let you know that you are only allowed to have one FAC open at a time. Aoba47 (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: But Aoba, I only have one FAC open xD. OK, I wasn't aware of this rule. I'll make sure to remember it for the future. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your note. When I posted my comment, your Boogeyman 2 FAC was still open so that is why I put this up. Good luck with this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Aoba47
  • I am not sure if the quotes from the critics are really that necessary in the last paragraph of the lead. It may be better to condense this information into a paraphrased sentence, and keep these quotes in the "Reception" section.
  •  Done I tried fixing it. I hope its satisfactory. The main problem is that as I said during the GAN, the movie was praised / criticized for pretty much the same things; with reviewers simply having different opinions.
  • I do not think you need the references for the "losing control" sentence in the lead as the references and information should already be found in the body of the article. Same goes for the sentence on the "interactive movie" in the lead.
  •  Done I have included comments by reviewers on the film's them of control in the "Reception" section. As for the "interactive movie" section I believe it is notable enough to warrant a mention in the lead considering this is a threatically released movie that had an interactive DVD release.
  • In the sentence "The film was a financial success, the highest-grossing film in the franchise when it was released.", I would suggest revising to avoid the repetition of the word "film" twice in close proximity.
  •  Done
  • In the following sentences (Like the previous two installments, Final Destination 3 was filmed in Vancouver. Filming took place during a three-month period, during which, the first month was spent entirely on filming the roller coaster's derailment.), the word "filming" and variations are used three times in close proximity. Perhaps, revise this to avoid repetition?
  •  Done Though the word is still repeated twice.
  • For this sentence (According to Morgan, for Erin's death at the hardware store, he searched the aisles of a local store at Sunset Boulevard for days to get inspiration.) in the body of the article, it may be more beneficial to incorporate this into another paragraph as the one-sentence paragraph is rather awkward.
  •  Done As it refers to how Morgan was inspired for Erin's death, I included it with the paragraph that also discusses story concepts for the film.
  • Please use Wong's full name in the body of the article upon his first reference and link him.
  •  Done I also linked Morgan as well.
  • It may be helpful to add a topic sentence to the second and third paragraphs of the "Critical response" subsection.
  •  Done I tried briefly describing what it is critics found positive / negative about the film with one sentence. I'm not sure they're very good though.

Wonderful work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: OK, I believe I've adressed all of your comments. Hopefully the changes I've implemented are satisfactory. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this nomination. Good luck with getting it promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bluesphere[edit]

Resolved comments from Bluesphere
  • Provide descriptive alts on images
  • I'm not really sure how to do them any better. I suck at ALT descriptions. :(
  • Just try your best on this. I believe alt texts in images are required for FA articles. Bluesphere 04:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I think. I'm not sure if they're much better now though I did try to be a bit more descriptive.
  • Substitute those <br> markups with the {{Plainlist}} template in infobox. Also, the "release date" parameter requires the earliest release date (which in this case, February 2, 2006); use the {{Film date}} template for this.
  •  Done
  • Its development began shortly after the release of Final Destination 2, Try this one instead, "Development of the film began shortly after the release of Final Destination 2.
  •  Done Should have picked up on that one.
  • ...Wong and Morgan placed control as a major theme in the movie, movie → film (might wanna observe this accordingly on the rest of article)
  •  Done Though I googled it and I think movie is AE, while film is BE.
  • Negative reviews stated that the film was formularic, did you mean "formulaic"? I notice similar typo under "critical reception" section
  •  Done Shit you're right. Honestly, I'd never even seen the word before.
  • ...Casting began in March, 2005... there's no need for that comma.
  •  Done
  • Attention was especially given to the tanning-bed and nailgun death scenes which were favourably received, needless dash for tanning-bed (I also notice this on the rest of the article), and it should be "favorably" since this is an article about an American film, thus should be written in the US English.
  •  Done
  • High-school student Wendy Christensen, needless dash in high-school
  •  Done
  • Like the previous two films, characters are named after horror-film directors, actors and producers. needless dash in "horror-film".
  •  Done
  • Dustin Milligan, Cory Monteith and Harris Allan had small roles in the film. I've already tagged this requesting for an alternate reliable source since IMDb is not considered one.
  •  Done I removed their names since their characters are pretty uniportant to begin with.
  • According to BBC.. the BBC
  •  Done
  • Needless dash in "roller-coaster". Do a spotcheck on this.
  •  Done
  • ...having interesting kills and delivering to audiences what they've come to enjoy from the franchise. Avoid use of contraction in "they've" per MOS:N'T
  •  Done
  • IGN gave Final Destination 3, and Den of Geek called the film need attributions. Also, don't pipelink Den of Geek to the Dennis Publishing article. Try rewording it to, "Den of Geek! (a publication of Dennis Publishing)..."
 Done If it's not satisfactory I can try to change it further.
  • Add a separate column for the references to make the table more presentable.
  • Aren't they already seperated, with the "|30em" addition?
  • I meant those refs by the table under Nominations subsection, not the footnotes. Bluesphere 04:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, OK.  Done

@Bluesphere: OK, I've responded to most of you comments. I still have a few problems / questions with some of them. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vedant[edit]

Comments from Vedant
  • Instead of using "Final Destination" in the lead, you could the first film of the series to avoid the repetition of Final Destination.
  •  Done
  • "in which characters are impaled and decapitated" - not sure how this adds anything to the article, it's rather irrelevant.
  •  Done Yeah, I'm not sure either. It had been there for years.
  • "Wong said that unlike the second film" - "he" would fit better.
  •  Done
  • "envisioned from the very beginning for both the film" - both the film?
  •  Done Don't know how I missed that.
  • "The Ring Two" will need the release year.
  •  Done
  • So would "Instant Star" and "It".
  •  Done I also reworked the wording slightly to indicate Johnson was still starring in Instant Star, as the show was still on air.
  • "the highest-grossing installment in the franchise" bit is not mentioned in the box-office section, you should substantiate the claim there.
  •  Done
  • Information like Chris G. Willingham being the editor of the film are never substantiated in the article's body.
  •  Done Added him in. He actually won an Emmy for 24. Had no idea. No wonder the film looks good. :P
  • Also, the production companies : Hard Eight Pictures, Practical Pictures, Matinee Pictures, and Zide/Perry Productions are never mention in the body of the article. You might have have to incorporate them in the body and source them as well.
  • I don't know if all four are worth mentioning. I did add that two of them had previously worked on either the first film or both. I'm probably gonna need some help rewording it. Also, could I reference IMDb as I haven't been able to find an article about any of these companies and the films they produced.
  • I think the mention of the major production houses associated with the project should suffice. NumerounovedantTalk 18:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done
  • Can you also possibly mention Jeffrey Reddick somewhere in the article, to make sure that the reader is aware of the original source material?
  • Would it be alright if I just mentioned him in the lead section? Something along the lines of "FD3 is the first in the franchise to be written without the involvement of Jeffrey Reddick".?
  •  Done

The rest look good, fine work. Let me know if you have any questions. NumerounovedantTalk 08:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Numerounovedant: OK, I've changed most of the things that you wanted. I hope you like the changes. But I need some help with the last two things on the list.
I can Support this nomination, good luck. NumerounovedantTalk 18:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support. :D --PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

Resolved comments from JMilburn

Happy to take a look. I don't think I've seen it, but I may have... I watch a lot of horror and they end up merging into one.

  • "The film is set in 2005, the line "six years ago" is a continuity error as the first film is set in 2000." This feels like OR.
  • I had a discussion with another user regarding this here. The third movie takes place in 2005 as shown with the various props to be found, Jason's grave and the McKinley Tricentenial. As for the first movie, it takes place in 2000, according to both Final Destination 2 (on Officer Burke's computer) and 5 (on Sam's plane ticket). My guess is, since the third movie was filmed in 2005 and the first one in 1999, which is indeed six real-life years apart, is the reason for this continuity error.
  • "roller coaster derailment" It'd be ugly, but that's a compound adjective, so it should be "roller-coaster derailment". Perhaps you could rephrase to "derailment of a roller coaster". ("opening scene disaster" is the same; in the article body, you have "opening-scene disaster", which is correct!)
  •  Done Compounded all of them where necessary.
  • "Casting began in March 2005 with Winstead and Merriman landing the leading roles and continued through April. As with the previous two installments, Final Destination 3 was filmed in Vancouver over a three-month period, during which, the first month was spent entirely on filming the roller coaster's derailment." This is not good writing.
  •  Done Tried fixing it.
  • "Thinking that Kevin is making fun of her, Wendy dismisses his theory and leaves" What theory?
  •  Done
  • "on the night of the accident." Which accident?
  •  Done
  • "by a panicky horse" Informal
  •  Done
  • "Craig Perry and Warren Zide's company Zide/Perry Productions, along with Wong and Morgan's own company Hard Eight Pictures, which co-produced the first film returned to produce Final Destination 3." This needs attention- there's too much going on in this sentence, I think.
  • Should I just remove it?
  • The information is probably important. How about (if I understand what you're trying to say): "The companies that co-produced 2000's Final Destination—Craig Perry and Warren Zide's Zide/Perry Productions, and Wong and Morgan's own Hard Eight Pictures—returned to produce Final Destination 3." Josh Milburn (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done
  • "According to Wong, the idea of using a roller coaster derailment as the opening-scene disaster came from New Line Cinema executive Richard Bryant and dispelled rumors that it was inspired by a Big Thunder Mountain Railroad incident. Additionally, he said that unlike the second film, which was closely tied to the first, Final Destination 3 was always intended to be a stand-alone sequel with new characters.[5] Morgan revealed that for Erin's death at the hardware store, he searched the aisles of a local store at Sunset Boulevard for days to get inspiration." Again, this isn't good writing.
  •  Done I hope.
  • "further stating that one of the reasons people are afraid of them is because as according to psychologists, "[they] have no control"." Unclear. Who stated? What is the them referring to?
  •  Done
  • "Wong revealed that during casting of the film, they sought actors that were able to portray the main characters as heroic individuals with realistic qualities." Odd comma; unclear what the they refers to.
  •  Done
  • "This sentiment was also echoed by Perry, who stated that for the two lead characters they wanted actors who "had the charisma of movie stars, but weren't so ridiculously rarified that you couldn't feel like you might know them"; casting of the supporting characters was given equal weight, being considered as important as the main characters." I'm also struggling with this. How about "This sentiment was echoed by Perry, who stated that [someone] sought actors to play the two lead characters who "had the charisma of movie stars, but weren't so ridiculously rarified that you couldn't feel like you might know them". The casting of the supporting characters was given equal weight, being considered as important as the casting of the main characters."
  •  Done
  • "won the role because her character's emotion impressed Wong and Glen Morgan" her portrayal of?
  •  Done
  • "Lemche said that Ian "spouts some interesting facts that seem to be just right there on the tips of his fingers", and the actor researched most of Ian's information. During the read-throughs, he often asked Glen Morgan about Ian's facts; Morgan wrote him notes and gave him URLs to research Ian's random insertions of odd information."[12][13]" The speech marks are off, and this is tricky to follow because Ian's facts are yet to be introduced.
  • I changed the speech bubbles to make it flow better with the sentence. Not exactly sure however how to incorporate Ian's fact in another way.
  • "Winstead and Merriman said in an interview that the film required three months of shooting; the first two weeks were spent on filming the roller coaster scene, and the rest of the film was shot out of sequence." This does not mesh with what you write in the lead.
  •  Done
  • "The death scenes required varying degrees of 2D and 3D graphic enhancement, with the roller coaster scene made up of 144 visual-effect shots. The coaster was customized, based on events in the script. Most of the model was hand-built, with MEL scripts aiding specific elements. The coaster crash scenes were filmed on green screen with a CGI background where the actors performed. Several cars were suspended on bungee cords to film the crash, and the deaths required CGI onscreen effects; each actor had a corresponding CGI double.[21]" I'm struggling.
  • I rewrote the paragraph. I hope it's more understandable now.
  • "and Digital Dimension handled the death scenes" Not all of them, surely? You name two others who are involved in death scenes (Meteor Studios and Soho VFX).
  • Actually they did! Mostly though. Basically, three studios were involved. Meteor Studios worked on the roller coaster scene while Digital Dimension was responsible for all of the death scenes; the one exception being Ashley's and Ashlyn's death at the tanning bed which was done by Soho VFX. Should I rewrite it to say that "Digital DImension handled the individual characters death scenes"?
  • Who authored the novelisation? Who was the publisher? These seem like important pieces of information!
  •  Done
  • "The deleted scene is an extended version of Wendy and Kevin's discussion after they are questioned by the police." There's no mention of the questioning in the plot section
  •  Done
  • "James Berardinelli of ReelViews agreed, saying that for fans of the franchise "it's unlikely that #3 will disappoint"." Is ReelViews a publication like the others you mention? A quick glance at the article on the author suggests that it's a book series. (Also- I like Den of Geek, and I agree that it's above the reliability bar, but is this really the best source you have here? I'd imagine a high-budget film like this was reviewed all over the place.)
  • I checked and while James has published books called ReelViews, it's also the name of the website where he posts his film reviews. Regarding better sources, aren't IGN, Variety and The Chicago Sun-Times pretty high review sources?
  • Nail gun or nailgun? (You have a "nail-gun", but that's a compound adjective.)
  •  Done Put them all as nail gun.
  • The writing in the "Analysis" section could use some attention.
  • Is "Dreck Fiction" a reliable source?
  • They appear to have reviewed numerous films of various genres and years, having started in 2010. Would you consider them reliable?
  • On a similar note, have you had a look at the academic literature here? This and this jumped out at me. I may be able to help with access if you don't have access to a university library or similar.
  • Holy shit. These look really useful. Unfortunately I'm not able to view them. One of them is a book I'd have to buy so there's that. As for the article, I checked and apparently my college isn't listed there so I can login.
  • If you email me, I may be able to send you some relevant material. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried but unfortunately your e-mail address doesn't appear to be recognised. It could be because I'm using Outlook.com.

I made some copyedits as I went. There's a lot to like about this article, but the writing feels a little sub-par for FA standards. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: OK, I believe I've implemented or at least responded to all of your comments. And thank you for copy-editing the article, that was very helpful. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: I have a proposition to make. I got both PDFs and they're working just fine. Thank you very much for both of them. I'm sure they'll be very useful with the "Analysis" section. The thing however is, it's going to take some time to read through both of them and write about them in the section. In a few days I'm going off on vacation and won't have WiFi around. And I'd rather not half-ass an analysis paragraph just for the sake of getting a support with this nomination. For this reason, I suggest to either leave the section as it is or remove it until I am able to write a better one. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's great that you're ready to spend the time to get it right. Perhaps the delegates would be willing to hold off on closing this nomination for a few weeks? I personally don't see the harm in pausing reviews like this for a time (I do it often with GA reviews). I would offer to do it myself, but I'm currently preparing for a move, next week is a complete write-off for me, and I'm not yet sure what the week after will look like! Josh Milburn (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: I'm on mobile data so I'll jeep this short. I read through both books sources and was able to find some information regarding the film which I added in the analysis section. From this point on. All that remains are for corrections to be made. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great! It's late here, but I'll hopefully find time to take a look soon! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some edits to the analysis section. Three quick comments:
  • What makes Dreck Fiction reliable?
  • That, I don't really have an answer for. Their "About" section doesn't offer much info about them. I guess what makes them better than a mere indivudal's blog is that they appear to focus exclusively on reviewing and analyzing film, video games etc. and the large amount of articles / reviews they've written.
  • @JMilburn: I guess it doesn't really meet the requirements. Should I remove the references to Dreck Fiction and keep only Harleman
  • You seem to be missing a quote-mark or two in the paragraph on Brinkema.
  • Oops, fixed it.
  • I appreciate that Brinkema's prose is fairly dense, but I'm not sure I understand what is meant by the description of the deaths as "being durational in nature and not epistemological".
  • After rereading what she wrote I actually got even more confused by that sentence and overall paragraph from the article. Decided to remove it.
  • I'll try to find time to have a look and see what I can draw from it. 22:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for these edits; I will aim to find time to look through the whole article again. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Second look[edit]

Ok, I am taking a second look through the article.

  • "As with the previous two installments, Final Destination 3 was filmed in Vancouver over a three-month period" Presumably you mean that it was filmed in Vancouver, like the previous two films, and it was filmed over a three-month period. As written, you are currently claiming that both previous films were also filmed over a three-month period.
  •  Done
  • I wonder if the final paragraph of the lead could mention any subsequent Final Destination films? Also, I wonder if you could add something from the analysis section to the lead?
  •  Done Regarding the sequels. For the analysis I'm not so sure as all three paragraphs talk about different things. If I were to add in information regard analysis should I write something along the lines of "the film proved the source of analysis in regards to its underlying theme of losing control, genre in modern horror and death scenes"?
  • "Wendy learns that her sister Julie and her friend were also on the roller coaster" They were on the roller coaster but survived, or were on the roller coaster but got off before the disaster, or were on the roller coaster on a different occasion, or what? I'm struggling a little with this.
  •  Done
  • "The idea of death omens in photographs was taken from 1976's The Omen." This is important information, but it's out-of-place; it should be mentioned alongside other information about influences, rather than between two facts about early development.
  •  Done
  • "but also because they believed that fire and blood would not" Who is the they, here?
  •  Done
  • "According to Wong, the idea of using a roller-coaster derailment as the opening-scene disaster came from New Line Cinema executive Richard Bryant and was not inspired by a Big Thunder Mountain Railroad incident. Additionally, 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.[5] Morgan revealed he searched the aisles of a local store at Sunset Boulevard for days to get inspiration regarding Erin's death at the hardware store.[8]" This is all good, but it feels like three random facts thrown together to create a paragraph. Maybe you could move the stuff about standalone sequels to the first paragraph, and bring the stuff about The Omen into the second. Actually, I'd be tempted to merge the second and third paragraphs of this section; they are generally on the topic of themes/inspiration, which fit together neatly, and they're both very short.
  •  Done
  • "perky blonde" I don't like this being in Wikipedia's neutral voice; is it a direct quote? If so, quotemarks?
  •  Done
  • "Johnson said that she wore a rocker jacket<!-- What is a rocker jacket? --> for the second reading and was in a bad mood" You may want to note the comment that someone left! I also note that "second reading" is jargon.
  •  Done
  • "the filmmakers called her back to read for Erin and her dialogue in the scene was sarcastic" I'm struggling to understand what is meant, here.
  •  Done
  • "Lemche said that Ian spouts some interesting facts "that seem to be just right there on the tips of his fingers", and the actor researched most of Ian's information. During the read-throughs, he often asked Morgan about Ian's facts; Morgan wrote him notes and gave him URLs to research Ian's random insertions of odd information." This is a bit all over the place.
  •  Done Tried making it easier to understand.
  • "A custom-designed coaster was created and customized, based on events in the script." I'm guessing this wasn't actual-size; could this be clarified? You could just call it a "custom-designed scaled-down coaster".
  •  Done From what I remember, besides filming on the actual roller-coasters, Corkscrew, they had also created a few coaster cars of their own which they suspended with wires to film the scenes where the coasters cars are flying off and the characters die.
  • "The coaster-crash scenes were filmed on a green screen with a CGI background where the actors performed." This needs some attention; I don't really understand what "where the actors performed" means. I'd just lose it.
  •  Done
  • "Meteor Studios produced the roller-coaster and subway crashes, and Digital Dimension handled the death scenes" I know I picked up on this before, but it's still problematic. As written, it is suggested (even if not strictly implied) that "the roller-coaster and subway crashes" are one category of scenes and "the death scenes" are another; of course, the crashes are themselves death scenes. There's also Soho VX in there somewhere. This all needs to be clarified.
  •  Done
  • "Lemche acting the previous animation" Do you mean something like "Lemche imitating the chosen animation"?
  •  Done
  • "Final Destination 3 is the only film in the series without a released musical score" Really? Are you sure you don't mean "soundtrack album"?
  •  Done If only the film had been a musical. T_T
  • "the film grossed $105,940 for 37th place" In what rankings?
  •  Done
  • You discuss the special edition of the DVD in the lead, but not in the discussion about the DVD releases. This leads to some confusion about whether the choose-your-own-adventure feature was available in the regular release or only in the special-edition release.
  •  Done

Pausing for now; back later. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • On Den of Geek: I agree that it is a reliable source, and actually personally quite like it. I can't help but feel, though, that for a film of this sort, there are more reputable publishers/reviewers to quote. Empire and The Guardian published reviews (the latter actually published two), for example. They're both very well-regarded and well-established sources for reviews of this sort. I wouldn't be afraid of expanding the critical response section, either.
  •  Done Implemented both reviews.
  • I'm really not sold on CinemaGogue or Dreck Fiction, but I am open to being convinced that they're reliable. I wouldn't include them, if I were you.

I definitely want to see this article promoted, but I do think that there remains some room for improvement! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JMilburn: OK, I believe I've responded to all your comments regarding corrections. As for CinemaGogue and Dreck Fiction, I don't really know how to make them reliable. If you deem them too unreliable I could just remove it and keep the other two paragraphs, considering they both comes from pretty reliable publications. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this doesn't tread on your toes too much, but I've started to rewrite the analysis section. There was a lot of good stuff in Brinkema, but I appreciate that it will have seemed pretty dense to anyone not used to reading that kind of thing (so I'm sorry for dropping it on you!). I'll look at Conrich soon. I have removed Dreck Fiction and CinemaGogue; I think there will be plenty to use in the academic literature. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm done; let me know what you think. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JMilburn: I think it looks great. And you actually managed to connect Brinkema's analysis with that of Conrich's. I do feel kind of weird that the analysis section is somewhat bigger that the "Critical response" section but I'd say it's pretty good as it is. I can always just expand it in the future. Is there anything else that you want me to correct in the article? PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My instinct would be to expand the critical reception section, but if you'd rather keep it short, that's your call. I will aim to have another look through the article soon; we surely can't be far off now! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One final niggle: Jeffrey Reddick is not mentioned in the article body; just in the lead. This means that the reference for the info about him is unclear. And please double-check the few more edits I have made. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JMilburn: Your changes look good in regards to grammar and clarification. No problem there. I also included Reddick in the main body and was able to find a source where he briefly talks about this. PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I'm now leaning support. Some great work has gone into this article, and it's looking very good. I do think a close source review is needed, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On hold[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Hi, per J Milburn's suggestion, could it be possible to place this nomination on hold or something similar until I am able to read through the article/book for the film's "Analysis" section, in order to ensure it's of good quality? Not being near WiFi might make this take a little longer. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "hold" process at FAC, and this one is not really in danger of archiving at the moment. But... If there is substantial work to be done, and nothing is going to happen for a time, it may be better to withdraw this for now and renominate it at a later date. Otherwise it could clog up the FAC list a little and might draw attention from other articles in the queue. I'm happy either way, but if nothing happens in the next week, it is probably better to archive. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I wrote a response to this a few days ago and thought it saved but then again it was on the mobile... ;-) Anyway, Sarastro's thoughts are pretty well identical to mine. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need a source review. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Aoba47[edit]

Source review from Aoba47
  • Earwigs okay, there is a raised score due (attributed) quotes, but that is fine given the context.
  • All of the information and quotes in the article appear to be accurately taken from the sources with proper attribution; it passes a spot check.
  • For Reference 5, please link Parade to Parade.
  • Could you provide any more information in the citation for the Hollywood Jesus source (i.e. author/date/etc.)? The citation just looks a little bare.
  • For Reference 57, please change Seattle Times Newspaper to a link to The Seattle Times.
  • For Reference 50, please link Roger Ebert.
  • This isn't technically a part of the source review, but please switch around References 77 and 78 in the Accolades table as they should be in numeric order.

Great work with this article; once my comments are addressed above, then this will pass the source review. Aoba47 (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Alright, I fixed references 5, 50 and 57. I also put references 77 and 78 numerically. As for Hollywood Jesus, the PDF unfortunately doesn't include any information about who wrote it or when. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for responding to my comments, and that makes sense to me. I just wanted to double-check to make sure if there was not any further information on that particular source. Great work with this, and it passes the source review. Aoba47 (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


@FAC coordinators: Was wondering on the nomination's status now that it has passed its source review. Are more comments/supports necessary? PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I don't want to be a fly in the ointment, but have you looked closely at the reliability of the sources used? Several comments above picked out questionable sources, and a glance through the list shows a reliance on a lot of websites that look less-than-stellar. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @J Milburn: Thank you for your message; it is understandable. I do not necessarily see any issues with the reliability of the sources, but feel free to do another source review or list the sources that you find questionable. I do admit that I am not that experienced with source reviews so it just may be my inexperience. Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We still need commentary on the reliability of sources, particularly as J Milburn has raised concerns. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for not addressing this in my review. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from JMilburn[edit]

Source review from JMilburn

@JMilburn: Could you list the sources in the article that you find unreliable so that I may replace / remove them? PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'm open to being convinced that I'm wrong about any of these, but after a look through the reference list, I'm particularly concerned about:

  • "Final Destination 3". Moria. Archived from the original on April 18, 2017. Retrieved March 6, 2017.
  • Removed the source and section regarding the characters names being homages.
  • Bossik, Glenn (March 14, 2006). "The Screenplay For Final Destination 3". Scriptologist. Archived from the original on June 19, 2017. Retrieved June 19, 2017."
  • "Final Destination 3 Notes" (PDF). Hollywood Jesus.
  • While the PDF unfortunately doesn't include an author or date of publication, I have checked their website and Hollywood Jesus has been running now for almost 2 decades. And the PDF itself is listed on the website so it is certain that it belongs to them.
  • A website does not become reliable purely by existing for a while. I think what you're actually citing is a press release; there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but I'm struggling to find the original source. (I did come across a mention that Tommy Lee contributed to the soundtrack; is that worth including?) Josh Milburn (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the website's page featuring the PDF. As for Tommy Lee, I think his only contibution to the soundtrack is that his cover of "Love Train" was used in the end credits. PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Final Destination 3 filming locations". Movie Maps. Archived from the original on February 7, 2017. Retrieved February 6, 2017.
  • Replaced.
  • "Final Destination 3 (2006)". Movie Locations and More. April 22, 2013. Archived from the original on April 26, 2017. Retrieved February 6, 2017.
  • Removed.
  • "Final Destination 3, Roller Coaster Scene...". Quick Movie Facts. February 21, 2012. Archived from the original on May 3, 2017. Retrieved February 6, 2017.
  • Removed source and section.
  • Gould, Chris (June 21, 2006). "Final Destination 3". DVD Active. Archived from the original on April 18, 2017. Retrieved February 11, 2017.
  • Gonzalex Jr., Felix (July 22, 2006). "Final Destination 3 (2006)". DVD Reviews. Archived from the original on November 19, 2008. Retrieved February 18, 2017.
  • He is a Rotten Tomatoes approved critic.
  • "Final Destination 3 Awards". Movie Awards. Archived from the original on January 9, 2017. Retrieved January 8, 2017.
  • Removed.

I do think that there are also some formatting issues. I made some tweaks, and perhaps you could redo the Patrick Schmidt citation. There may be others. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JMilburn: OK, I fixed Schmidt's reference and replaced or removed some of the citations. The ones that stayed are one whose authors / websites I check to see if they're reliable. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JMilburn: Are there any more references that are troubling you? PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Second part[edit]

Ok, looking through the references again:

  • I have made some tweaks; please double-check them.
  • I did; they seem fine.
  • I am struggling to understand your italicisation policy. Newspapers/magazines should always be italicised (unless you're using a very unusual [for Wikipedia] citation style). When it comes to websites, there's an open question (I personally don't like to see, say, "IGN" or "Allmusic" italicised, but that's just me). I don't mind what you use, as long as you're consistent.
  • I guess I still need to learn a few things in this regard. When citing I always use at the top of the edit page the "Cite -> Templates" button. Since most of my references are from articles published online I use the "cite web" template. Some time ago I realized that if the publisher isn't just a website that I should replaced it with "|publisher=". I wasn't aware that there were even more variations.
  • I'm just basing this on MOS:ITALIC which applies as much to the references as the prose. As a general rule: if you would italicise a particular name in the main article, it should be italicised in any footnotes; if you wouldn't italicise it in the article proper, don't italicise it in the footnotes. And make sure you're consistent! (Don't worry too much about what the templates do/don't do. They're just tools.) Josh Milburn (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am happy to accept the Hollywood Jesus source now, but I do think it needs to be better formatted. It needs to be made clear that this is a press release from New Line Cinema that happens to be on Hollywood Jesus. An access date would also be valuable.
  • I replaced the PDF file with the website source. For one thing, it has an access date and I can archive it. I also added New Line Cinema in the citation though I'm not sure if I used the correct format. I use |publisher=.
  • Hmmm. I'm not certain how to go about doing this; I'd tried an alternative, using |via=. How does that look to you? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks good. And to be honest, it does seem more correct too. The information itself is indeed "published" (sort of) by New Line Cinema. It was simply shared with people through that website.
  • "Faust, Christa. Final Destination III: The Movie. Black Flame. ISBN 9781844163199." I couldn't find it, so I note it here without too much expectation, but a publishing location would be a good addition.
  • I looked but I wasn't able to find the publishing location of the book / Black Flame.
  • "James Wong. Final Destination 3 (2006) (DVD). United States: New Line Cinema. Retrieved January 7, 2016." If you're citing the DVD itself, we don't need an Amazon link. The Amazon link is only needed if you're citing Amazon (which, as it's a commercial source, will be objected to by some Wikipedians!)
  •  Done
  • I wouldn't personally be too fussed about accessdates if you're archiving, but, seeing as you have them, could you add one for Weinberg?
  •  Done
  • Could you please add the publication date to the Firefox News source?
  •  Done
  • Your Otto sources are a bit weird. I'd spin it out as a separate source in the way you do with the academic papers and cite the pages respectively as Otto (2005), p. 1 and Otto (2005), p. 3.
  • I think I understand what you're trying to say, but isn't that something we do for book sources? both of Otto's articles come from IGN. Granted yes, they are Page 1 and Page 3 but they're still seperate articles with different URLs.
  • There's no reason to think that we shouldn't do this with non-book sources; take a look at Emily Davison, for example, which is another article currently at FAC. I think you're wrong to characterise the pages as different articles; they're different pages, but that's not all that different from articles spanning multiple pages in a book, journal or newspaper. Looking again, I suppose there's nothing all that wrong with the current formatting if you're not keen on my suggestion. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned the Tommy Lee fact as it was deemed worthy of a press release; I would have thought it would be a nice line to add to the music section. (On that note, your use of the phrase "released score" in that section is a little ambiguous; I assume you mean soundtrack album?)
  • @JMilburn: Could you link the article on Tommy Lee? I'd love to read it. As for the released score, that's exactly what I mean. A soundtrack album contains songs that were included in the movie. A musical score is about the music, not songs, that were created specifically for the movie. None of the Final Destination film ever had soundtrack albums. However, the first two movies, along with the fourth and fifrth ones all had the musical scores released.
  • I can't remember where I saw the press release, but here is a nice source about Tommy Lee; Blabbermouth is a respected source for news related to heavy metal. I'm sure there will be more! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely getting there! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JMilburn: Added Tommy Lee into the article. I had no idea he recorded the song exclusivel for the film. I always just assumed her provided a cover for it and the director decided to use it in the film. Thank you for the new info. As always. Is there anything else that you wish me to do? PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still a bit concerned about the italics; I can't really work out how you're deciding what to italicise and what not to. It looks like all the newspapers/magazines are italicised, which is good, but there seems to be some inconsistency on the web-only sources. The MOS is pretty unhelpful on this: "Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon or HuffPost). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized (Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online). Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis." Not only is this vague, but it isn't followed in practice (no one italicises the name of this online encyclopedia, for example). I suppose I would just like to see you adopt a consistent style. Just one example (and this is just one; I'm not saying "here's the problem I want you to fix"): are you italicising Metacritic or not? You don't in the article proper, you do in the references. As above: If you would italicise in the article, italicise in the refs. If you wouldn't italicise in the article, don't italicise in the refs. MOS:ITALICTITLE may be helpful, but it only goes so far. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having just typed that, part of me wants to say "to hell with it, life's too short". To go back to the reason I originally started this second source review: I think all of the remaining sources toe the line for reliability. My support for promotion stands; I do think that this is pretty much ready, and I commend you for your work on the article (and I enjoyed writing the part of the article that was "mine"!), even if a bit more hole-picking might be possible. I hope this review hasn't put you off, and hope you'll bring us more horror films here at FAC in the future! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JMilburn: OK, I followed your advice and checked through the references. I italicized them (or not) based on whether the titles of the websites / publishers are italicized on Wikipedia. Thankfully, most of the references have their own pages at Wikipedia, so that was easy. Thank you for bringing that my attention. I'd also like to thank you for helping with the article by adding to it; especially the "Analysis" section and I appreciate the support. I'm not sure if my next FAC will be horror related but I definately would like to improve upon further articles. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: The source review is finally done. All of the references have been checked in regards to reliability and their website / publishers are properly italicized, where necessary. PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Yeah, no. Can you like archive this or whatever? I'm not interested in going over through another source review. So, unless you plan on passing the nomination as it is, just archive it cause I'm just not interested in seeing this through any longer.

Especially from someone who asks what makes Bloody Disgusting a reliable source in regards to a horror movie. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not everyone is a subject expert. You could explain why it's a high quality reliable source ... I'm not saying it's not - but just as I wouldn't expect anyone to know all the various reliable sites for horse research ... it's not always going to be obvious why a site is a high quality reliable source to someone not interested in a specific niche field. But it's your choice to archive it rather than try to educate other editors. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiousity, in regards to CinemaScore, did you even type "Final Destination 3" next to "Find CinemaScore"? Or for 604, where you link the about section, see that it say the website and project is funded [in part] by the government of Canada? Or with Scriptologist, read JMilburn's source review where I tell him "The site was created and run by Glenn Bossik, a graduate at the School of Visual Arts, who holds a degree in film production and worked with Alan J. Pakula"? Or that fact that James Berardinelly is a Rotten Tomatoes approved critic? As I said, I'm just not interested, nor can I go though a third source review or having to work on this article any longer. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The CinemaScore is a problem with the actual link ... not with the reliablity. The link should go directly to the content that supports the information. If for some reason the site cannot do that, you need to make that clear in the citation that the reader needs to do an additional step to verify the content. I can't know I need to do soemthing if the citation does not tell me that. Whether Rotten Tomatoes "approves" a critic doesn't necessarily make a source a high quality one. Just because the government of Canada partially funds something doesn't make it high quality - I don't automatically trust anything "partially funded" by the US government either. In every case where I question something, I went to the site, I hunted around for an about page (which in many cases I listed above...) and only after failing to find something that showed high quality did I question it. It's not a hopeless situation - I didn't feel that everything was so clearly not-reliable that I opposed the article - but there ARE issues with the sourcing - using stock photos to source information is just not going to work, it doesn't even meet the basic standards of WP:RS, much less the higher standard at FAC. I'm sorry that you feel that you are jumping through hoops, but... the standard is "High quality" and that needs to be shown. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm sorry for acting like such an asshole to you when you don't deserve it. But I can't do this any more. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sad to see this review come to this conclusion. PZ: I appreciate that this review probably hasn't gone as you would have hoped, but I do hope that it can be valuable experience for you. In particular, I hope it will help you think through some questions about sourcing. While I do not think that every source Ealdgyth has highlighted has to go (and that's fine; reasonable people can disagree about these things, and I'm sure Ealdgyth is open to being convinced that some of these sources are above the bar), I do think that she was right to highlight them. You'll note that several of the sources she highlighted I also highlighted, and maybe I was a little too ready to let questionable sources slide. I recommend being a little more ruthless with your source selection, and perhaps paying particular attention to the issue (and/or asking for a third opinion) prior to future GAC/FAC nominations. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:51, 27 August 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/archive1&oldid=1138460679"