Wikipedia:Peer review/Final Destination/archive1

Final Destination
Look, this peer review can't be ignored. We need it done, so I can figure out and get some help getting it to GA. Immediatly. Francisco Tevez 19:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Okay, here's my suggestions for getting it to GA status:


 * 1) There is a slight 'narrative' tone to the article; it needs to be taken out. Things like "causes a ruckus", "kicked off the plane", "Billy was lucky enough", etc. sound somewhat like a story, and could be replaced with other, toned-down phrases.
 * 2) The cast and characters section is a tad lengthy. Here's what a cast section should really look there. There's no need for a long explanation of the characters and their actions; the section should just list the actors and who they played. There can, in certain cases, be articles that give short descriptions of characters, but - and this is just my personal belief - articles seem much more professional if they're concise.
 * 3) The section on death is also longer than it needs to be. Whereas the article now gives an in-depth look as to how each person dies and gives us a complete description, all that's really needed is a short list (or something to that affect) that tells how the characters died without going too far into it.
 * 4) The trivia section should be omitted altogether. Although you do see a lot of 'trivia' sections in articles, there is a rule against them, albeit a rarely enforced on. But when trying to get articles to GA or FA status, the trivia sections are almost always removed.
 * 5) I would consider adding 'production' and 'reception' sections. Production sections should be in-depth and give good details about how, when, and where the film was made. Reception sections are usually one to two paragraphs and give the general consensus of the film and then usually compare two polar opposite reviewers (one who hated the film and one who loved it).
 * 6) And most importantly, there need to be way more references. Here's two good examples of what a reference section should look like:  . Don't reference things in the plot, but reference everything else. And if you do add a 'production' or 'reception' section, be sure to reference them, too.

I think that this article definitely needs some work, but it has promise. The technical structure of the writing is excellent (not a comma out of place), and it would work as a news story or book, but to get to GA (or, eventually, FA) status, it needs to be changed to meet Wikipedia article standards. I hope this helped. Good luck! -- Captain Wikify Argh! 20:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It definitely looks better now. I'd continue referencing as much as possible. -- Captain Wikify Argh! 18:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)