Talk:Clear Rivers/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Numerounovedant (talk · contribs) 18:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Big fan of the franchise and the character in particular, this should be a treat. Will put up comments soon. NumerounovedantTalk 18:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Likewise, nice to see another fan. And thank you for taking this up for review. :) PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I am really sorry, but I have been caught up in my semester exams and haven't been particularly active here . I'll take a look by this weekend. NumerounovedantTalk 23:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Numerounovedant: Don't worry about it. I know how important one's studies are. If you wish to back out of the review so that you don't have to worry about it along with your studies, I completely understand. PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I have a long weekend ahead and I'll get to this very soon. Than you for understanding. NumerounovedantTalk 12:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Appearances

I found little to point out during the review, but here are sine;:

• "After Alex's friend Tod Waggner and their fellow survivor Terry Chaney both die in freak accidents as well as having a discussion with mortician William Bludworth, they realize that Death is after them and attempt to rescue the remaining survivors." - This could be better structured to point out both the plot points.

• Fixed.

• "While she does inform Kimberly of what she know about Death she still too distraught over Alex's death and induces Kimberly to let the other survivors perish an save only herself. " - things wrong here: "knows" and a missing"is", "an" to "and".

• Fixed.

• "The three of them gather the remaining survivors to Thomas'"- gather to?

• What's wrong here?

• "despite Clear's and Kat's attempts to save her" - Kat hasn't been established as a character before this. I believe Well, no other characters are, and I believe that it would help if mentioned the survivors in one line at the beginning.

• Fixed.

• "After getting in a car accident that leaves Eugene needing medical help and eventually leads to the deaths of Kat and Rory, Clear, Kmberly and Thomas go to the hospital to save Isabella." - You might want to split the sentence as the changing tense and too many names complicates it.

• Fixed.

• "While they do succeed inf finding her in time and ensuring" - in.

• Fixed.

Rest looks fine in the section. Will go through the rest soon. NumerounovedantTalk 13:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Development

• "I remember reading the script for the first movie and just being thrilled to find out I’d be playing a more introverted, darker character than I was accustomed to at the time" - You can trim the quote as the first half is really unnecessary.

• Fixed.

• I am not sure if "cancelled" is best choice on the next sentence.

• I believe what Larter meant was that she was offered numerous scripts but turned them down as the roles she was offered weren't as interesting as Clear. Tried rewriting it to make it more, ironically, clear.

• "Devon Sawa, who performed as Alex Browning in the first film" - played

• Fixed.

• "The crew had an option on Sawa to return, hence no financial setbacks was acknowledged" - I am not sure if I understand this part.

• Fixed; see below.

• "The character has incarcerated herself into isolation, utilizing her as the main link to the original film." - Two different things put into one sentence.

• Fixed

• "The whole casting process had everything to do with narrative, therefore, nothing to do with financial issues or Sawa’s unwillingness to return" - This too can be rephrased to read better.

• Fixed; trie to combine this with the one above to make it clearer as to why Clear was brought back instead of Alex.

• ""great" and "terrific"" - One adjective should suffice.

• Fixed.

Will go through the rest tomorrow. NumerounovedantTalk 13:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@PanagiotisZois: I do not have many concerns regarding the prose in the Reception section, only if you could explain the reliability of some of the lesser known sources to me. NumerounovedantTalk 07:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Numerounovedant: Alrighty, I believe I've adressed all of your concerns. Hopefuly they are satisfactory. As for the references; I wasn't the one who found them but I did check them and they all come from websites that review films with the sites consisting of multiple people and each site has reviewed numerous films. To be fully honest though, I always assumed that as long as it doesn't come from some random's personal blog, any review will suffice. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Final Comments

Looks good to go, fine work PanagiotisZois. You might need to be able to substantiate some of the refs better if you intend to take this to FA, and this is relatively minor, but just make sure that the images have proper alt texts. For now, it's an easy Pass. NumerounovedantTalk 09:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for reviewing Clear's article. I'm not sure if I'll nominate it for FA in the future but if I do I'll follow your advice. PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)