Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror/Review/Friday the 13th (franchise)

Friday the 13th (franchise)
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)

Hornoir
Overall I'd say that the article is very tight and well-written, though there are a few areas I have qualms with: "Friday the 13th is an American horror franchise that consists of twelve slasher films, a television show, novels, comic books, video games and merchandise." …seems better phrased as… "Friday the 13th is an American horror franchise that consists of twelve slasher films, a television show, and various merchandising, including novels, comic books, and video games." Since both the film series and television series list duration (number made), it feels awkward to me that the other aspects don't list this. By segregating them under the merchandising banner, I don't think I'd notice it as much. "Friday the 13th is considered one of the most successful media franchises in America not only for the success of the films, but also because of the comic books, expansive merchandising that includes various toylines, video games, soundtrack releases and references in popular culture." …seems to relist some of the merchandising aspects from the lead sentence. Wouldn't this be better served as: "Friday the 13th is considered one of the most successful media franchises in America not only for the success of the films, but also because the expansive merchandising and repeated references in popular culture." I don't particularly like the term "expansive", but it is tolerable.
 * 1) The lead sentence seems awkward to me:
 * How so? The "merchandise" is supposed to cover things like toys and soundtracks that are released. Novels and comic books are equivalent in media as films and television. They're their own series of storylines. I could see something more like, "...consists of twelve slasher films, a television show, novels, comic book sand various merchandising." -- which would encompass the video games and the general toys.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My main qualm is with the "merchandise" tag at the end, which certainly should be "assorted merchandising" or "various merchandising". I have a very minor qualm when some items in a list specify the number (TWELVE films, A (of ONE) television series) and then the remainder do not; I find sub-categorizing the non-specific things looks more professional to me. hornoir (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooooh. You mean something more like this?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. hornoir (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) In the final lead paragraph, the sentence:
 * I'm cool with that . Would the word "extensive" be better for you? To me, "expansive" seems more like a landscape, while "extensive" seems more like it's a long list.    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, "extensive" is a much better word than "expansive". hornoir (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Like here?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup again. hornoir (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Under the Box office section, I think it would flow better to place the "List indicator(s)" table underneath information table proper.  This is typically standard in notation systems (after and not before).
 * Could you show me where the standard is, because this is the standard applied to various articles with similar lists: List of Harry Potter cast members and Spider-Man (film series) are a couple that come to mind immediately.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was particularly thinking of items like DVD releases (e.g. Supernatural (TV series)) wherein the notations are at the bottom. I know I've also seen this method on comic book trade paperback lists, though I can't think of one at the moment.  If you've seen the other used frequently, then I withdraw this suggestion.  hornoir (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, I see that as a different table setup. If I was using that setup, then I probably would have a note at the bottom. But that DVD setup isn't the same as the one being used here, or at the Harry Potter, Spider-Man or other pages that use similar table setups. I think the difference is that they do not use individual cells like these tables do. In those, the only thing they report is what they find, and they don't leave sections blank. Here, we have cells that are blank because the info isn't available. In such a case, it would be (IMO) more relevant to inform them ahead of reading why there are missing cells, as opposed to at the end.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, neither here nor there since other sources alternate it. I personally view the bottom of the template as more aesthetically pleasing (see my example at the bottom of this review), but not a major concern.  hornoir (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The Impact section needs to be incorporated into somewhere else or expanded to include more than one discussion topic (IGN).
 * I'm aware. I'm hoping that someone could help find more information, because it doesn't really fit anywhere else.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Consider using the rp template to cut down on the number of references in that section.

Alternate table formatting


 * You want something more like this?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it more clearly indicates that the notations refer to the table and it is more aesthetically pleasing, but — as I said — since both version can be found in various locations it is neither here nor there. In other words, it is up to you.  But you may want to address #5 on my list above, as I think that might be a good thing overall.  hornoir (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the proper way to use that template (I read the page and am still confused), and even that template page said not to use the template unless absolutely necessary. You might need to provide some examples of how it could be used, because I don't fully understand its application.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. We'll use the Peter Bracke book as a for instance, since it is quoted several times but using different pages (thus taking up multiple citation lines).  Instead of this, use the rp template to indicate the page number after use.  The reference tag would become (note the removal of page numbering).  The first time it is used (no. 19), add  directly after the tag.  All future uses of the book, use  and thus it won't take up so many spaces in the references section.  Did I make this clear?  hornoir (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm playing around with it in the preview mode. Am I correct in my assessment that the reference section will only list the single Bracke source (with no page number(s)), but the actual article will list the page number directly beside the citation at the end of the sentence? If that is the case, then I have to say that I really don't like that. It makes it distracting when you're reading, because (IMO) I don't believe that the average reader (or editor) realizes what those numbers are for. Granted, I understand the application and how it's supposed to "trim" the reference section, I just don't find it aesthetically pleasing (not to mention the possible confusion to people who are not familiar with that template setup...which I would assume might be quite a few given that most articles that I've seen with multiple instances of the same source don't use that template). I respect your option, I just don't particularly care for the setup within the article itself. It just seems too confusing to have two distinct numbers side-by-side like that (i.e. the cite number and the page number).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the correct manner to use it. And, to be honest, I agree; I think it is ugly as all sin.  But it does cut down the reference section in instances when the same book is references various times with different pages.  Just an option I was pointing out.  <span style="font-family:CarbonType,American Typewriter,Bookman Old Style,Courier;">hornoir <span style="font-family:CarbonType,American Typewriter,Bookman Old Style,Courier;">(talk) 02:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)