Talk:Digging for Fire

Digging for Fire has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 12, 2016. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Digging for Fire appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 May 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the 2015 American film Digging for Fire was filmed from a two-and-a-half–page outline rather than a traditional screenplay?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Digging for Fire.

Wikipedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Digging for Fire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 21:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the typical format towards the end of film GAs is a "Release" section, with subsections for "Box office performance" and "Critical reception", plus other subsections as needed ("Home media"). Your's is formatted a little differently. I understand it wouldn't be possible if you can't find some more info on the financial performance, but it would follow the generally accepted style for film GAs if you were able to. Not required though, as some, like Obvious Child, don't do this.

There is no hard-and-fast rule for formatting film articles. Per MOS:FILM this is acceptable and I think it is preferable, since it only spent a few weeks in theaters so naturally there won't be nearly as much box office content as your average major studio film.

"...and making a total of $119,364 from 38 days in theaters." Still at three locations, or did it expand any?

I've added a bit more detail here.

The critical reception section seems thin compared to nearly all GAs on films. You could maybe stand to add some more reviews, or mention any Best of/Worst of lists it made it onto. I do like the divide between positive and negative though.

Like with the box office, I think you may be comparing this article to GAs on major studio films. I tried to pick a blockbuster film GA at random to illustrate the differences in the number of reviews, so I looked at Guardians of the Galaxy (film), for which Rotten Tomatoes lists 277 reviews (compared to 59 for Digging for Fire). Yet the reception section is only a little bigger. Personally I think the length of this section is pretty proportional to the number of reviews it received and comparable to other GAs on smaller independent films.

Less than major studio films, yes. But also some independent projects as well. Nevertheless, fine here. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Movies that grossed in the hundreds of thousands, like Smashed (film), list their grosses to the dollar. You seem to have rounded up in the info box.

I wasn't sure about this, but Template:Infobox film recommends using "condensed, rounded values", so I rounded down to the nearest thousand. Maybe the same should be done for Smashed (which I also wrote, by the way).

What a coincidence! Yes, after reviewing the guidelines myself, I suppose you are in the right here. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, most film articles have a soundtrack section. Not required, as there are exceptions, but it would make the article that much more comprehensive.

Per MOS:FILM, this is only for films that have a soundtrack with a standalone release, or if there is significant coverage of the music used in the film; neither of these apply here.

Nice work on this article! Very close to GA status as is. Just a few things needed to be addressed here. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@QatarStarsLeague: Thanks for the review! I have replied individually to each of the points you raised above. 97198 (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that does it. Great work on this article! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! 97198 (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]