Wikipedia:Peer review/Friday the 13th (franchise)/archive1

Friday the 13th (franchise)

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get some feedback on the article BEFORE taking it to FAC. The article is a rather comprehensive look at the Friday the 13th franchise, from the films to the comics. I'm looking for feedback on tightening up the prose, pointing out any confusing sentences (this will most likely come from someone not familiar with the series already), as well as any other suggestions.

Thanks,   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Generally, this article is pretty damn good. With plenty of references, good prose, excellent WP:MoS, I believe that this article is almost ready to send up to the FAC! Cheers.  Im per a t § r (Talk)  21:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the words of support. Is there anything you think could be adjust to improve the article any further?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Will post on the talk page by tomorrow :) Cheers.  Im per a t § r (Talk)  23:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: As a peer review has been requested, any significant comments should be posted here rather than on the talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I placed a commentary at the WikiProject Horror review request page (which can be found here).

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
 * Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.horrordvds.com/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewarticle&id=142
 * http://www.horrordvds.com/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewarticle&id=142
 * http://www.slasherama.com
 * http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1980/0FF1.php
 * http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/564
 * http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=7395
 * http://www.fabpress.com/vsearch.php?CO=FAB057
 * http://www.ysrnry.co.uk/articles/fridaythe13th.htm
 * http://soundtrackcollector.com/index.php
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 01:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I fixed the ALL CAPS issue.


 * As for the EL sources, it depends on the the source.


 * The HorrorDVD source (and I'll have to check that, because I clicked the link and got a generic page so the link may be dead), is used merely to provide a third-party source that describes the contents of the box set. I theoretically don't even need a source for that, because it's just as easy to read the back of the box set and see the same information. It's merely a courtesy source. It doesn't make any claims about the DVDs on a subjective level, just points out the special features and what it contains.


 * Slasherama is an interview source. They personally sat down with Harry Manfredini, which makes it a primary source, and is completely acceptable.


 * The-Numbers.com is the same thing as Box Office Mojo, they use the same industry insiders to report on film box office that BOM does, they're just an alternative source.


 * Actually, the more I look at them, it appears that they are all virtually "courtesy sources". I say that because none are used for professional opinion, or even to reveal some type of "insider" information (ala production information), but are used as just a courtesy for information that could otherwise be found at the source itself (e.g., the back of a DVD box, the inside of a book, etc.). For instance, the FABPress source is the website for the company that produced and distributed the book "Making Camp Blood", it's a link to their original press release that they sent out describing what the book contains. It's rather uncontroversial. I could just as easily say that the book itself is the source to prove that it contains interviews from the cast and crew of the films, but I figure a nice link to the original press release (housed on the website for the company that made the book) would be nicer to have for a quick reference. The UK source is just someone explaining what the game was about. There is no subjective opinion about the game included, just a description of the game's gameplay. The website is devoted to reviewing games, but my concern was just finding a place that describes what happens in the game, not what they thought about it because I'm not in the UK and don't have a good feel what what constitutes a "good source" in the gaming community or the UK community. Seemed unobjectionable.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)