Talk:Over Your Cities Grass Will Grow

Critically acclaimed

Critically acclaimed is attributed to a news source and means, in the case of movies, that the movie was praised by film critics, multuple. This differentiates it from the movie having a large viewing audience, a specific source of financial success. Peacock is about unatteibuted random use. I also reverted your unexplained removal of another source. -166.137.191.25 (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "critically acclaimed" is rarely used in the first sentence for articles on actual acclaimed films, take a look at Argo (2012 film), The Godfather or Gone with the Wind. --Daniel(talk) 16:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This is an indie documentary, it is hard for me to judge what should go in this article based on blockbuster Hollywood film articles. I am also in the current position of being given widely conflicting and incorrect information while "established" editors call me an idiot, so I am a bit weary of being told things then finding they may not be true. I used it from the source, and I tied it to a source, and it has a specific meaning, but the discussion at peacock seems to be about a vague and unsourced claim. This is specific, movie critics giving the movie praise, it is sourced, and it not vague, and the movie is a foreign art house documentary, not a major studio release, so I think it complies, is sourced, and says what it means. -166.137.191.30 (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Here are some examples of low budget documentary which were positively reviewed, they don't use the term "critically acclaimed" either: Indie Game: The Movie, Elemental (film). The issue is that the phrase "critically acclaimed" is vague, why not just say that a specific critic gave it a positive review instead? --Daniel(talk) 18:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Both these film articles quote non-notable blogs. I don't think that quotations from non-notable blogs are an improvement over my using the information from a source that calls the film critically acclaimed. Alternatively, I could say that a film review calls the film critically acclaimed, if that is what you are suggesting. I could list the positive reviewers. None of these would improve the article or be less vague or more informative than giving the information from the actual review, namely, that other reviewers acclaimed the movie in their critiques. I'm not going to quote blogs, by the way. -69.225.10.37 (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I do agree that your bringing this up and discussing the issue will, ultimately, lead to an improved article, though, and I think we can find an alternative. -69.225.10.37 (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I gave those two films as examples of films (not major films per your suggestion) which received positive reviews from notable publications (not blogs) but didn't use the words "critically acclaimed" in the opening sentence. I'd suggest making a paragraph about reviews, discussing critical opinion on the film in a neutral manner. Calling it a "critically acclaimed" film in the opening sentence creates an unencylopedic promotional tone and does little to inform the reader. --149.169.56.217 (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It is only one paragraph. I can probably create another one, but I did not care for the way either of those articles used film reviews, the first couple of reviews each linked to were actually blogs, not established reviews in reliable sources. I realize that "critically acclaimed" is over used, but it does have meaning, and it is used here in the way it means. Nonetheless, I will rewrite some of the more important film festival reviews into a paragraph as you suggest. -69.225.10.37 (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this thread before I reverted. I have to back up the sentiments about not having peacock phrases anywhere, but certainly not in the opening sentences. A "Critical reception" section is advisable, using quotes from the critics of notable and reliable sources expressing their opinion. If the film really is "critically acclaimed", then it should be the critics that say so in their own words, not us deciding that fact. - SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)