Talk:Knight and Day

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Knight and Day article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

Film: American

	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 articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Espionage Low‑importance

	Knight and Day is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kansas Low‑importance

	Kansas portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

20th Century Studios Low‑importance

	20th Century Studios portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 20th Century Studios, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 20th Century Studios and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.20th Century StudiosWikipedia:WikiProject 20th Century StudiosTemplate:WikiProject 20th Century Studios20th Century Studios articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Critical response section is far too long

The "Critical response" section seems to be written by someone who didn't understand WP:NOT - specifically, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. I've never seen another film article that has even a quarter the number of review by critics that are in this article. Reviews from perhaps the most important half-dozen or so critics should be included, and the rest of the information should be deleted. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Broughton, I concur. Go ahead and cut it down. I believe the editor who wrote this article is gone. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one did anything to shorten the section.[1] So I took a stab at it.[2] Still needs a lot of work to make it more coherent, so that rather than going critic by critic, it better addresses the bigger points like the perceptions that the there was no chemistry between the stars or that Cruise by force of will manages to keep the whole thing going.

I wouldn't say it's a good film but it's action packed and undemanding and I've found myself watching it in TV repeats more than I care to admit. -- 109.78.204.92 (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

An editor made this revert, citing NPOV.[3] But there is no NPOV issue here. Please explain further. --2603:7000:2143:8500:9908:4467:7D2D:5F71 (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editor obviously thought it was non-neutral (and possibly pejorative) to refer to Roger Friedman as a "gossip blogger" rather than a journalist. The Wikipedia article for Roger Friedman does call him both a "journalist and gossip blogger" but notice that it does put journalist first. Journalist is a more neutral description.

It isn't relevant in this context to highlight that he is a gossip blogger, what is relevant in this case is only that Roger Friedman was writing for The Hollywood Reporter, that's where his perceived authority to comment is coming from. There's really no need to either talk him down by calling him a "gossip blogger" or talk him up by calling him a "journalist". -- 109.78.202.99 (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]