Jump to content

Talk:Crawl (2019 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Despite not being screened for critics...

[edit]

Sometimes Wikipedia editors make claims that aren't in this sources (like taking the box office and the bad reviews and claiming one was "despite" the other). So I understand caution when editors make claims about unrelated events being "conversely" or "despite" something.

However in this case the film was not screened for critics AND the critics expressed surprise that it was quite good and wondered why it wasn't screened for critics, and the lead actress also expressed her own surprise as to why it wasn't screened for critics. -- 109.78.219.163 (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Box Office section notes that the film was not screened for critics. This doesn't seem like the best place for information about critics and their responses but it's better than not including it at all. -- 109.76.158.242 (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Crawl (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Crawl (upcoming film). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tarantino

[edit]

Tarantino said it might be his favorite film of the year[1] but the year isn't over yet, so maybe I'll add this to the article later with more sources if Tarantino mentions it again. -- 109.78.237.56 (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Crawl (2019 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 18:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Earwig's copyvio detector brings up a fairly high percentage. Most of this is due to quotes and some false positives. In particular, this seems to be because of a Pepper's quote in the casting section, which I would suggest trimming down a bit and instead summarising what he says. There are some copied phrases as well which I would recommend rephrasing; e.g "months of endurance training", "open his eyes underwater for long periods of time".

Assessment

[edit]
  1. Comprehension: The article is well written.
  2. Pass Pass
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The prose is clear and concise. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) The article is compliant with the manual of style. Pass Pass
  3. Verifiability: The article is verifiable and well researched.
  4. Pass Pass
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Contains all necessary inline citations and a list of references. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Sources used are reliable. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) No original research found. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) No major issues with copyright or plagiarism. Neutral Neutral
  5. Comprehensiveness: The article is comprehensive.
  6. Pass Pass
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The article has a broad coverage of all major aspects. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) The article remains on topic and without unnecessary deviations. Pass Pass
  7. Neutrality: The article is neutral.
  8. Pass Pass
    Notes Result
    The article is compliant with the policy of neutral point of view. Pass Pass
  9. Stability: The article is stable.
  10. Pass Pass
    Notes Result
    No ongoing content disputes, edit warring or major changes. Pass Pass
  11. Illustration: The article is well illustrated.
  12. Pass Pass
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) Images used are tagged with their appropiate copyright statuses. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Captions are appropiate. Pass Pass