Talk:Over Your Cities Grass Will Grow: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:21, 13 March 2013

Articles for creation Stub‑class

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article was accepted by reviewer fuhghettaboutit (talk · contribs).

Film: French Stub‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the French cinema task force.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 :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]]. --[[User:Daniel J. Leivick|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Daniel</span>]][[User Talk:Daniel J. Leivick|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">(talk)</span>]] 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. -[[Special:Contributions/166.137.191.30|166.137.191.30]] ([[User talk: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? --[[User:Daniel J. Leivick|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Daniel</span>]][[User Talk:Daniel J. Leivick|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">(talk)</span>]] 18:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)