Talk:Clear Rivers/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 04:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picked this up as it was one of the oldest unreviewed articles. The first thing I noticed was the overuse of quotes particularly toward the end of the article. Did a quick calculation and (not including the lead) about 40% of the article consists of various quotes. The reception section itself is basically a list of quotes in the form of, such and such said "......", while critic 2 said "...." etc. There are also some very long ones (e.g. "We’ve brought back Clear in an interesting way and we just felt that to bring both of them back would make you wonder too much just what the hell they’d been doing for the past few months. We had an option on Devon to return, so money wasn’t an issue. With Clear, Ali’s character knows everything about the enemy that she and Kimberly Corman are facing and she’s the perfect mentor for Kimberly. Ali’s character has incarcerated herself into a mental institution for her own protection so she’s the main link to the original film.”). If most of the quotes can be turned into prose then I will reconsider, but in my opinion there are too many for this article to pass as a Good article; failing the prose and focus requirements. AIRcorn (talk) 04:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would like to thank you for taking notice on the article. Second, I understand the 'quotes' issue and will be on to it. Lastly, is that all? -- FD Joshua 22 09:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I understand that most of the quotes should be first-person view as always, but do I need to revise ALL quotes? -- FD Joshua 22 09:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could call this a preliminary review. I think to get it up to GA standard quite a bit of rearranging of the last few sections will be needed. Therefor since the prose and possibly the references might change then I do not see the point of reviewing those issues until they are stabilised. Also with these older reviews I have found it better to make a quick comment first as sometimes the nominator is long gone. So a fuller review will follow.

No probably not all the quotes. I think you need to justify the use of any quotes you use. Think of them a bit like non-free images. If you can think of a convincing reason why they add to the article then you can use the. The long ones (if they are important - which you might have a case for the one I singled out above) can be put into quote boxes and be used much the same way as images. I have noticed the overuse of quotes in reception sections with a lot of articles. It can be tempting to use them to expand the section, but I would much rather see a concise overview of what the critics thought. If there are a few that had similar critques then you could combine them into one sentence. Wherever possible try to paraphrase what they say. Maybe just use a key word as a quote (i.e John Smith found Rivers to be an "uplifting" character, while Jane Doe was disappointed with her "lack of empathy".made up example). It is always better to use your own words and a small well written section would be much better. Take a look at Sterling Archer, another article I just started reviewing. That article does a reasonable job of portraying the reception without using all quotes (although they are still probably on the high side of ideal). AIRcorn (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done the best that I can. Is it enough or should I rephrase more further? -- FD Joshua 22 06:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is a bit bare and abrupt in places. Could it be fleshed out some more.
I am wondering if the minor characters need to be named. It kind of breaks the flow and does not add much to this article in my opinion. Keep the major ones and those directly associates with Clear, but the detectives in particular and probably Tod seem unnecessary.
Tod Waggner (Chad Donella) unexpectedly dies, forcing Alex to flee with her. The deaths are a major part of the films, maybe a bit more can be added here to describe what is happening, why they flee.
Inside her residence, she explores her past with Alex regarding her father's death, her mother's remarriage, and her abandonment. This hints at more, but doesn't explain much.
Afterwards, she and Alex visit William Bludworth (Tony Todd), who claims about Death and its consequences. Grammar
Not long after, her house experiences short-circuits, obliging her to escape with her car. This does not make sense to me. Houses don't experience things or oblige someone to do something.
Some more about relationships would be nice - it has been a long time since I saw the movie, but were Alex and Clear dating at the start?
The car is trapped by livewires, nonetheless Alex saves her and survives. Months later in Paris, Alex rethinks about their triumph over Death, in which she saves Alex from a speeding bus, yet also witnesses Carter's demise. Again this does not really make much sense. I think Alex and Clear might be confused. I think you need to re-read the plot section and approach it from the point of view of someone who has not seen the movie. Also it doesn't need as much detail as say the movie article (the name of the flight is not important or even which airports it is going to). I would also not worry so much about chronology. If knowing something beforehand improves the readability then go with that.

Here's how I would approach the plot for the first movie (I don't remember the details exactly so it might be a bit wrong in some places).

"Clear first appears in the 2000 film Final Destination as a senior about to board a plane destined for Paris with her classmates. Once on board, Alex Browning (Devon Sawa) warns the passengers about a vision he just had of the airliner exploding in mid-air. This causes a commotion, and Clear, Alex and five other passengers are forced to disembark. The plane detonates soon after take-off killing the 286 other passengers. Over the course of the film the passengers who were removed from the flight begin dying under unusual circumstances (wasn't it in the order of their seating or something). Clear and Alex learn that Death is reclaiming the lives of those that escaped his clutches and they try to save the lives of the remaining passengers. In the end only Clear and Alex manage to "cheat death"."

It is light on details, but covers the main plot points. The details about Clear (her mother issues, abandonment etc) probably belong more in the character development section anyway. AIRcorn (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Been a month and the concerns haven't been touched, so failing this. Wizardman 00:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]