User talk:Filmopedia

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Filmopedia! Thank you for your contributions. I am I am One of Many and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! I am One of Many (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The East

Hello, thanks for your contributions to The East (film). If you would like to discuss any aspect of the film article, I invite you to do so at Talk:The East (film). Let me know if you have any questions! Erik (talk | contribs) 19:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Variety review, I hope you'll review my edit summary here. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just noticed that you removed a statement that recapped the critics' consensus of the film. I've restored the statement. Can you explain why you did this? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should Movieline be removed in its entirety? It is providing an overview of what the reviews said. Per MOS:FILM#Critical response, "Commentary should also be sought from reliable sources for critics' consensus of the film." In particular, doing this helps us anticipate and set the balance of reviews to sample in the section. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, nice to be editing with someone so talented. Movieline's commentary being Web-based and not a "Hollywood Trade" publication should not come before the trade summaries. Agreed with you re: trade paragraphs and in that vein thought your line about filmmaker growth needed context so I added summary paragraphs last line to better translate its meaning. Perhaps Movieline can go after trades? Why did you remove New York Daily News? I believe paper publications should be included but understand if you want to keep it cleaner. Filmopedia

Thanks! :) When I restored the consensus sentence, I accidentally removed the review. I've restored it. My general approach is to try to provide an overview upfront. Something like Variety is good to include, but it is still only one review out of several. I think that the consensus sentence is a more appropriate way to set the tone for the rest of the section. The Variety review cannot define the tone of the other reviews, after all. I'll look for other coverage, but it seems to have died down for this film. Hopefully there will be some print coverage recapping Sundance that will mention how The East was received. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, that makes a lot of sense. We should both look for the right overview for upfront, something from a definitive source, perhaps in the Sundance roundups this week? Also, what about Zal's mother? The citations look correct now, thought they are not in correct formatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmopedia (talk • contribs) 16:22, January 27, 2013‎

We'll keep an eye out for the roundups. As for Zal's mother, I assume you mean the references at Najmieh Batmanglij? I only created Zal Batmanglij and haven't edited his mother's article. If you click on {{cite news}}, you can copy and paste the common code from there to use. (I personally type all the fields I need, though.) By the way, you can leave a signature by typing four tildes (~) at the end of your comment. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street Journal has an article here where it said the film got "mostly strong reviews". Sound good to use? There is useful information in the rest of that article to include in the Wikipedia article too! Erik (talk | contribs) 15:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erik I thought this was really on point. Also, the changes you made when someone added interpretations this early... I agree with you. You are so on point re: your editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmopedia (talk • contribs) 13:41, February 9, 2013‎

Hello, hope you're doing well! Thanks for pointing out Indiewire and The Wrap. I've included them, but I think Box Office Mojo should still be included. If reliable sources say different things, it is proper to attribute the various opinions and let the reader decide. I'm basing this on WP:SUBJECTIVE. I did something similar with Valkyrie (film)#Reception (since there was not a clear answer about what critics thought about it overall). Erik (talk | contribs) 02:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, WP:SUBJECTIVE might not be the best one. I was thinking of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, great work. I think you gave an accurate representation. Now, we have to figure out how to put 5 or 6 major paper reviews in there Ny Times, LA times, San Fran Chronicle, Washington Post, also the Wall St. Journal and USAToday. Because I think a line or two from each of them is important with a film like this? What do you think? {{subst:08:24, June 22, 2013‎|Filmopedia}}

We can do that. I have to admit I am not crazy about writing "Critical reception" sections. It's hard to condense a review into a couple of lines (especially if it does an exceptional job actually reviewing comparing to just recapping the film), and it's also hard to put everything together in prose so it all manages to flow. Hence why I prefer doing "Production" sections like Wolf Totem (film); I can put details together into a narrative. :) As for balancing the selection of reviews, Metacritic is a good gauge. Here, it mentions 25 positive reviews, 6 mixed, and 1 negative. So I would say we could keep the sampling mostly positive with some inkling of why the film wasn't perfect (and the negative review is an outlier). BTW, you can leave a signature by typing four tildes (~) after a comment. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the Metacritic breakdown = great sampling. That's why I think we should include Wall St. Journal, which was a straight-up negative review. San Fran Chronicle is key too because it is at the other extreme, with Ny Times and La Times in between (on the positive end). I agree that a prose style works best. In reading all the reviews I noticed the theme of Marling's performance as always being noted even in negative reviews. Filmopedia (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]