Talk:In a World...

To be clear the content at issue is this--

WP:WAWARD) 20:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

P.S. I withdraw my challenge of the top 10 list content based on my 21:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC) comment earlier. Phoenix Film Society remains at issue.--

WP:WAWARD) 14:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Dozens of films appear on the top-10 list of one newspaper or other each year. Is mention of this film on two small-city papers' lists notable or
  WP:INDISCRIMINATE
  , as opposed to the top-10 list of a recognized authority such as the National Board of Review?
  • This question makes no sense since it implies that you would either list the newspapers or the National Board, when in fact the prior version of article stated "The film has been recognized in various top 10 film list for 2013, including Carrie Rickey, Sean P. Means of the The Salt Lake Tribune and Joe Williams of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The film was recognized by the National Board of Review as one of the top 10 independent films of 2013." before you removed the relevant content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 18:58, 29 December 2013
  • Oppose inclusion The question makes perfect sense. Dozens of films get on some small or medium-sized newspaper's list every year. That's such a broad swath, how is it possibly notable that the Salt Lake City or St. Petersburg, Fla. or Sioux Falls, S.D., newspaper liked one of these dozens of films? A singular organization, very notable in the film industry, is a completely different thing. It's apples and oranges. And lumping apples and oranges together is what makes no sense. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one knows what you are opposing because you have made the disputed content unclear. Can you clarify that you oppose the inclusion of "The film has been recognized in various top 10 film list for 2013, including
      WP:WAWARD) 20:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Second, is it
  WP:INDISCRIMINATE to list every award and nomination given by every film club and small-city critics group, such as the Phoenix (Arizona) Film Critics Society
  ? 17:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know why you are using an external link when the
    WP:WAWARD) 20:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• I suspect because it's a poor article we have that gives no background at all about the Society or the award. At least the Society's own page explains exactly who they are. - SchroCat (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We had a brief discussion about this on Skyfall (see Talk:Skyfall/Archive 5#Awards/Accolades Table) and the consensus was to avoid putting in the pointless minor awards of various insignificant groups, which is something I'd agree with. - SchroCat (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is
    WP:WAWARD) 19:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • WP:WAWARD) 02:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• I've been asked here and on my talk page to clarify my !vote:
  
  • Oppose inclusion of top 10 lists from individual journalists/groups: aggregated versions may be acceptable, on a case-by-case basis.
  • Oppose inclusion of small/non-entity awards. I appreciate we appear to have some general agreement on referring to people or groups where we have an article, but
    our own article tells us absolutely nothing, and the membership
    fills me with dread and horror that this is somehow considered "notable". The "SchroCat Film Awards" would be a more compelling inclusion to make!
  • Strong oppose of the use of the phrase "critical acclaim" (as appears in the removed content at issue: too far into
    WP:PEACOCKery for my liking): let the balanced selection of reviews point the way. - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• • This has been discussed at length elsewhere. Just because a film club or a critics' society is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article doesn't mean that every pronouncement, award or nomination they make is notable. Phoenix is neither a center of film culture nor a hotbed of nationally known critics. Have you actually looked at its roster? It includes: "George Grorud, Retired"; "Mike Massie [and] Joel Massie, GoneWiththeTwins.com"; "Frances Rimsza, Retired"; "Shana Schwarz, The Foothills Focus" weekly shopper; "Dawn Underwood, Movienighttrafficlight.com"; and more like that, along with a couple of local TV stations. Non-professional retirees, weekly shoppers, non-notable websites. About the only noteworthy critics are two from The Arizona Republic newspaper, and they're not exactly Kevin Thomas or Manohla Dargis. You're not going to find the situation much different at Salt Lake City City, Albuquerque or Portland, Maine. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we be a bit more clear with exactly what information might be added to/excluded from the article? I haven't looked at the article history for details, but it seems that this film hasn't received much recognition so I don't think it can hurt to include whatever recognition it did received from professional critics. --Loeba (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the removed content at issue.--
    WP:WAWARD) 20:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• • • As noted above, the Phoenix critics include non-professional retirees and critics whose "professional" credentials are technical at best: self-published websites and free local weekly shoppers. That's not even the same creature as the New York Film Critics Circle. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • As a contributor based in Europe I know little of the pecking order of North American media outlets, but I think it would be helpful to our readers to cite papers etc internationally recognised as noteworthy, and avoid minor ones whenever possible. Whether the one at issue is major or minor I cannot say, though I must confess I hadn't heard of it before. Tim riley (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Include all the information that was removed. It may not be as notable as being listed in Kenneth Turan's top ten or receiving an award from the NYFCC, but that doesn't mean it isn't notable at all. As far as I know, the PFCS is regarded as a professional group and the newspapers mentioned are professional newspapers. It's not for us to say "No they aren't professional ENOUGH!" It's only a small bit of text and I just can't see any problem with including it. --Loeba (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not having a problem with including it" is a matter of personal taste and doesn't actually provide a reason for inclusion other that
    WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • You've ignored the first part of my comment, where I stated that the information is notable so should be included. The latter part of my comment is is still related to policy: I'm saying that "indiscriminate" doesn't apply when we're only talking about a small bit of information. The policy is there to stop articles from being burdened with every related factoid ("Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles"), but that wouldn't be a problem here. --Loeba (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose :I don't see an issue with the top 10 part where those top 10s are from notable bodies but why do we care what the Phoenix Film whatever thinks? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you opposing. It sounds like you are saying include the top 10s and exclude the PFCS.--
    WP:WAWARD) 21:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Comment Generally we include awards that we have articles about and remove awards that don't have articles. We do cover the
  WP:PROD or AfD the award I guess. Obviously if they survive deletion then they are de facto notable. As for top tens, I think those are generally best dealt with on a case-by-case basis. If they have received some independent secondary coverage, or have been solicited as part of a prestigious poll (such as the Sight & Sound decennial poll) then they are probably notable, but at the same time notability isn't hereditary so we shouldn't automatically just include a top 10 just because the critic is notable. Betty Logan (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • WP:WAWARD) 02:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I do not think the critic top tens should be restored unless they can be established as being independently notable: with aggregators, it is the overall critical consensus that is notable rather than what each individual critic thinks (and in the case of very successful films the number of placements on critic top tens could be endless). In the case of the National Board of Review top 10, we have an article at National Board of Review Awards 2013#Top Independent Films, so I would advocate inclusion in the case of this particular top ten. Betty Logan (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore contested content. In terms of top 10 lists, if we limit to those mentioned by
  WP:WAWARD) 05:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That blanket statement, I'm afraid, isn't accurate. It's been established in past discussions — and I hope as a fellow veteran editor you'll exhibit good faith and not make me spend a hour or two laboriously combing archives to cite chapter and verse — but just because a group has a Wikipedia article doesn't mean every utterance from it is notable. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since I have never heard that this is an invalid standard for inclusion in a list, you do have to say why it is not a valid standard for inclusion in a list like this.--
      WP:WAWARD) 15:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • You can't make a unilateral demand like that. In other words, you have to back up your assertion as well: You need to show where it says we're required to include every single award and nomination of every single piddling little organization that has an article in Wikipedia. I would say that clearly violates
      WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I think I have satisfied a reasonable burden by providing
        WP:WAWARD) 18:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • Not talking about Metacritic. Talking about the Phoenix Film Critics Society. Just because Wikipedia acknowledges that it exists doesn't mean that every utterance from that organization is intrinsically notable. That's
        WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Changing subjects: If Metacritic gives a top-10 based on an aggregation, that's one thing. Including every top-10 list down to the the Podunk Daily Star is quite another.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • If you support Metacritic top-10 aggregation as significant and I summarize the agggregate for this film by stating the more notable sources from that aggregate, what is the problem?--
          WP:WAWARD) 18:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Metacritic's own list at http://www.metacritic.com/feature/film-critic-top-10-lists-best-movies-of-2013 is one thing, and In a World... is not on that list. As for the Anytown USA Times, it's inconsequential. There are hundreds of newspapers and magazines and thousands of movie websites. A huge number issue top-10 lists. We are not obligated to list every film on every top-10 list that every newspaper, magazine and website posts. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is some merit to your statement. I don't really do a lot of film articles. I guess it is sort of similar to the basketball teams that are only "receiving votes" but not among the top 25 in the
              WP:WAWARD) 21:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
              ]
            • I appreciate your graciousness in saying that, Tony. Despite editors here having philosophical differences, this has been a very civil discussion overall, and your collegiality has been a big part of that. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Include all awards/festivals that have an article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WAWARD) 14:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Include Phoenix Film Critics Society award, neutral on the others. Both sides have made good arguments. For the Phoenix Film Critics Society, I was able to find coverage here on
  puffery, but I'm not directly opposed the practice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thanks for the hard work in digging these up. These
    WP:WAWARD) 14:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I'm afraid that's apples and oranges. We're not talking about whether the Phoenix film Critics Society is a reliable source for footnoting. The issue is whether a "critics" society that includes amateurs, non-notable
      WP:SPS bloggers and free weekly penny-shoppers has any significance. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
      ]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:In a World.../GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Spinixster (talk · contribs) 07:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll be reviewing this. At first glance, there are some issues with the article that should be fixed:

• There is 1 CN tag in the article as well as some unsourced parts.
  • I only saw one unsourced and untagged part. I have removed the two
    WP:WAWARD) 12:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• I'd suggest rearranging the sections per
  MOS:FILM
  ; right now, the placements are confusing.
  • Aside from the Box office and the reception being in the wrong order, I did not see any other misplacements.-
    WP:WAWARD) 12:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

  I think the Music section should be under the Production section; many other film articles follow this trend. Also, the Filming section may suffer from oversectioning because the sections are quite short. Spinixster (chat!) 12:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There are some (
  MOS:EDITORIAL
  , I think) issues with the prose, such as She deliberately filmed using shots in the style of a drama, although the film is a comedy. The "nose kiss" scene was suggested by Ken Marino, and it made Bell laugh so much she told him he would need to do it twice.
  • I think I have fixed the specific example, but when I search for "ly" in the text, I am confused on how this rule applies.-
    WP:WAWARD) 12:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

  I did not remember the exact guideline, but the part I mentioned is much better now. I'll do an in-depth review later. Spinixster (chat!) 13:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Per
  MOS:LEAD
  , the lead is too short.
  • I have expanded the LEAD, but reformatted it to two paragraphs per
    WP:WAWARD) 13:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I'll put this review on hold for now before I do a full review. Feel free to ask any questions if needed. Spinixster (chat!) 07:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Full review

Thanks for the needed improvements, I will now review the article further. This may take a while.

• Lead and infobox:
  • Some citations in the infobox are not needed as the information is already mentioned in the body.
    • OK-
      WP:WAWARD) 11:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Per
    MOS:LEADCITE
    , citations in the lead are not needed.
    • Thx.-
      WP:WAWARD) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Most of the gross was domestic. seems to be original research, since the body only lists the full price but does not say that most of the gross came from domestic audiences.
    • Total minus international is domestic, but I have spelled it out.-
      WP:WAWARD) 11:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Plot
  • Currently, the plot section sits at ~670 words, so there are no worries about the plot section being too long and violating
    MOS:PLOT
    . However, there are many one-sentence paragraphs, which is not encouraged, so I'd merge parts with similar ideas and summarize wherever possible.
    • I haven't seen the movie in a while, but I merged small parts together. Did not change any summaries.-
      WP:WAWARD) 11:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Production
  • Are there more information on the production? If not, I'd remove the subsections per
    MOS:OVERSECTION
    .
    • OK-
      WP:WAWARD) 11:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • The list of filming locations should be converted to prose.
    • Done-
      WP:WAWARD) 11:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Release
  • This section does not say when it was released at Sundance and North American theaters/international theaters.
    • Fixed.-
      WP:WAWARD) 12:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Box office
  • Perhaps this section can be moved to be inside the Reception section? I see that this is the trend with most articles, and it makes sense.
    • Done.-
      WP:WAWARD) 12:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• Reception
  • Per
    WP:RECEPTION
    I'd merge paragraphs that have similar ideas and try to summarize/paraphrase what the reviewer said to avoid high copyvio rates.
    • OK.-
      WP:WAWARD) 12:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Music
  • As said above, I'd move this to be under the Production section.
    • Moved-
      WP:WAWARD) 12:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Where did this soundtrack come from? Is it an official soundtrack album? Where is it sourced from? I think this should be clarified and sourced..
    • The only source I see is https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2294677/soundtrack/.-
      WP:WAWARD) 12:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]

    I think, unless there is a reliable source stating the song(s) used in the movie, the unsourced songs should be removed, and the Music section should be converted to prose and merged with the Production section. Spinixster (trout me!) 14:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • The issue is that when you search for the "In a World" Soundtrack, the search results mostly show the score: Amazon, spotify, apple.-
      WP:WAWARD) 21:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      I guess since Ryan Miller's score has a source, you can just say that he wrote the score for the film. Per

      WP:FILMSCORE, Track listings for film scores are generally discouraged since the score is usually composed by one person and the score's tracks are generic descriptions of scenes from the film. Spinixster (trout me!) 02:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

      ]

      • Done.-

        WP:WAWARD) 04:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

        ]

• Sourcing:
  • Source 6 is unreliable per
    WP:NYPOST
    .
    • Removed. It seems the cast section is not sourced, which I guess is OK. How would you source it if IMDB is not considered a
      WP:WAWARD) 21:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Per

WP:FILMCAST, any uncredited roles should be sourced to reliable sources. Spinixster (trout me!) 05:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

removed.-

WP:WAWARD) 06:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• • Source 25 seems to be an official YouTube upload of Kermode and Mayo's Film Review. I'd suggest using this link so it's more official and use Template:Cite AV media for it. Kermode also did a The Guardian review here, if it's useful.
    • O.K.-
      WP:WAWARD) 12:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Source 34, which is a primary source, can be replaced with this one.
    • Done.-
      WP:WAWARD) 12:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • The reference format is not consistent (
    WP:CITEVAR
    ). Some sources are missing authors, dates, etc., there doesn't seem to be a consistent way of displaying authors (they're either like "Deming, Mark" or "Tom Brueggemann"), you know what I mean. I'd suggest making them consistent with each other.
    • Fixed.-
      WP:WAWARD) 22:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • There are some primary sources (mostly at the Accolades section) that I think could be easily replaced with secondary ones.
    • I only saw one primary in accolades.-
      WP:WAWARD) 22:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Copyvio: Aside from the sources clearly copy-pasted from Wikipedia, there's only a 24.2% similarity for an attributed quote and common phrases.

• I found a few sources that might be useful to expand the Production section, e.g. writing process, inspirations, etc. There's also a few extra reviews for the Reception section.
  • Incorporated where subscriptions did not interfere.-
    WP:WAWARD) 19:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• I think the lead may not cover enough of the article, and
  MOS:LEAD
  is a required criteria to pass. The lead can still be 2 paragraphs, but may include more information on production, inspiration, etc.
  • LEAD nearly double the length that you reviewed (1004 characters vs. 539).-
    WP:WAWARD) 19:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Has anyone else done the observation that Melissa Disney was the only female voice-over talent to voice a film trailer?
  • Are any of these
    WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

  The first source seems to be a copy of her bio, which is primary. The original source Movie trailers lack female narrators is much better, though it doesn't mention that she's the only female voice-over talent to voice a film trailer. The second is a biography, which is primary. The third source doesn't seem to mention that she's the only female voice-over talent to voice a film trailer at all. Spinixster (trout me!) 02:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there a directive in your response?-

  WP:WAWARD) 03:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Sort of, though I don't think that it'd be useful to use this source in this case if it doesn't say what Lake Bell said. I just asked for more proof instead of relying on Bell. Spinixster (trout me!) 09:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll do some more digging and get back to you.-

  WP:WAWARD) 12:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The source at the time could have been This 2012 article.-

  WP:WAWARD) 12:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I think that's usable, though the claim would have to be altered to Disney being one of the few female voice actors who had voiced a movie trailer. Spinixster (trout me!) 13:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have incorporated this.-

  WP:WAWARD) 04:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Thanks. Since I have no more problems with the article, I will be passing this. Spinixster (trout me!) 06:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  After that it is Bell stuff like this. Then the story seems to die.-

  WP:WAWARD) 12:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• One-sentence paragraphs are not encouraged, so they should be merged with another if possible.
  • I'll get to these soon, but it may not be until the weekend.-
    WP:WAWARD) 03:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I do not recall being tasked with such an extensive reading assignment during a review before. I am digging into these right now.-
      WP:WAWARD) 12:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• From the first list, two articles require subscriptions, so I did not incorporate them. I am going to look at the second list. However, for the current article size, I feel the current critical response size is correct. Also, I see metacritic has 30 reviews and rotten tomatoes has 130. How did you select these for inclusion?-
  WP:WAWARD) 17:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]