Wikipedia:Peer review/Knives Out/archive1

Knives Out

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

Intend to take this to FAC in the immediate future but have concerns with comprehensiveness (mainly themes) and tone to a lesser extent. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advanced, DAP 💅 15:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

This part, (Seeking to modernize the whodunit films of the mid-twentieth century, the director's concept), would need to be revised as it reads that the "concept" is seeking to do this, not the director.

Revised.

I do not think "eventually" is needed in this part, (Johnson eventually pivoted to creation of his 2017 film), as the years provided (i.e. him starting out this concept in the mid-2000s and starting The Last Jedi in 2017) already makes this clear.

Corrected.

I am uncertain about the use of "occasional" in this part, (some aspects of the writing and performance drew occasional criticism), as it reads like it is downplaying these criticisms.

I tried to use "occasional" in the most literal sense, not to trivialize the reviews. Only to give clarity that criticism of the film was pointed and infrequent. Not a big deal though and I'm amenable to rewriting this statement (in fact, another user already did).

That is fair. I will leave this up to you. I think it works better without it, but it is not a major sticking point for me. Aoba47 (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Benoit Blanc referenced by his last name in the "Plot" section, while Marta is referenced by her first name? I understand why the Thrombeys are referenced by first name to avoid confusion, but the other instance seems inconsistant.

Naming practice in the film. Benoit is referred by his surname and Marta her given name.

That makes sense. At first, I was going to say that it should be consistent with either first name or last name used throughout, but I agree it is best to follow the naming convention used in the actual film so the current version makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something about this wording, (his first major feature, the low budget thriller), seems a little off. It is a "major feature" yet also "low budget". Why not say something like "his first film" instead?

Reworded.

I am not sure this full quote is necessary: ("A few reactions were 'We like this kind of movie, but why do you want to do this?' That did give me pause, but I felt like I knew deep down inside why I wanted to do it.") It is rather long and I believe could be paraphrased without losing much.

Revised for brevity.

I would avoid words like "recent" in this context, (whose recent work piqued Vernieu's interest enough), as it will not age well. The work being referenced is not "recent" anymore for instance.

Done.

I am not sure if this sentence is really necessary: (When Johnson met the actress for her audition, he was astonished by her piercing eyes.) Feel free to disagree of course, but when I first read it, it came off a bit odd and trivial. Maybe it would be better to more explicitly say how her eyes connect to her casting (i.e. Johnson saying "her eyes just bring you in, and you’re instantly on her side" and how that made her fit with the character). The quote might be helpful here.

Altered for clarity.

For this part, (in the Broadway revival of Kenneth Lonergan's Lobby Hero), I would include the year that revival happened.

Done.

I do not think the MCU acronym is necessary as it not used anywhere else in the article.

Edited.

These sentences seem off to me: (The impression left by Toni Collette's Joni in the news was that she parodied Gwyneth Paltrow, but Johnson and Collette assert Paltrow did not influence Colette's characterization. Collette said her biggest purpose was to find the humor in her character.) This section is about the film's production so it is jarring to jump to the reception of a specific character.

Edited.

For the "Set design" subsection, I think the parts on the automata devices could be separated into its own paragraph as it is a different topic than the previous sentences on the design of the Thrombey residence.

Done.

I think it would be helpful to break up the first paragraph of the "Music" subsection as it is rather long and to avoid having a single sentence paragraph at the end.

Revised.

For this part, ( the Senior Lecturer of Sociology at Birmingham City University), I would remove the university. It does not do much to help readers and this information can change over time.

Done.

Any reason for putting the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic information at the end of the "Critical response" subsection? I am more accustomed to seeing it at the start.

Yes, to place greater emphasis on the opinions of critics than aggregate data. It's a practice I adopted since Mike Christie mentored me some years ago for True Detective season 1.

That makes sense, and I agree with the sentiment. I will keep it in mind for my own work on here. I think that it is a shame that such importance is being put on a single number rather than looking at what the critics actually have to say (and I know that Rotten Tomatoes in particular has gotten worse about it). I could see it being a nice way to wrap up the section. Aoba47 (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncertain about using Toni Collette and Michael Shannon's images in the "Critical response" subsection. In my opinion, it gives them undue weight as it implies to me that they received more praise than they really did. The prose focuses more on Daniel Craig and Ana de Armas, but Collette and Shannon are only addressed in one sentence and as part of a larger group.

Removed.

I am not sure the quotes are really necessary here, (was described as "superb" and "wonderful"), and it is not directly clear who is saying them in the prose.

I use quotes for brevity in turn of phrases and, in this case, believe direct attribution undermines the reading experience. This is a helpful guide applicable as a frame of reference.

That is fair. Thank you for the explanation. I generally avoid one-word quotes as I feel that too many of them can take away from the other quotes (and I have been told that in the past during reviews as well), but it is likely just a matter of personal preference. Aoba47 (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be mindful about attributing quotes in the prose. For instance, it is not clear who is saying the following quotes in this part, (their work praised as "outstanding" and "wildly charismatic"). Attribution should be given directly in the prose when it comes to quotes.

See above.

See above to my response as well lol. It is not a huge issue, and it likely boils down to a matter of personal preference. Aoba47 (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This part, (neither they nor their costars were spared criticism), reads a little editorialized to me. I am referencing specifically the "spared criticism" part. I think there would be more concise ways to present this information.

Is "free of" better? Could rewrite the entire thing if it reads a bit embellished still.

I think "free of" works better so I would go with that wording and see how other reviewers respond to it. Aoba47 (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question for this part, (A few actors were regarded as underused because of the ensemble's large size). Would it be possible to provide examples as it is rather vague in the current wording.
Is the "Accolades" table large enough to warrant a separate list? I would also think that this information would be presented in prose form rather than a table.
I would make sure that film titles are italicized in the citation titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.
There are instances when the website/work is not linked, like Bloody Disgusting in Citation 93 and Variety in Citation 99. The links for the citations should be consistent, either with the links being used for each citation or only on their first instance. The Hollywood Reporter is linked for both Citations 2 and 4 so it is not clear which format is being used here.
Citation 98 should include IMDb to be consistent with Citation 3.
This article is included in the American nonlinear narrative films category. Is the story told in a nonlinear format? I did not get that impression from reading the article. It is not required, but I would recommend alphabetizing the categories as it just makes it easier for readers and editors to navigate.

I hope that this review is helpful and encourages other editors to participate. I have not seen this film so hopefully, that more outside perspective helps here. Apologies in advance as I will not be able to review more beyond this as I am trying to be more mindful of the time I spend on Wikipedia, but I wanted to at least try and help. Best of luck with this peer review. Aoba47 (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DAP389: Comments above. Are you still interested in working on this article, or can this PR be closed? Z1720 (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Life has gotten in the way but I am still interested in improving the article further. @Aoba47: greatly appreciate your feedback! I'll try to respond within the next day. DAP 💅 19:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses. I have replied above. Apologies for the delay. I must have somehow missed the ping. I agree with your responses and it has given me some interesting things to think about for the future, specifically with the placement of aggregate data. Take as much time as you need to respond to everything. I hope you are doing well and staying safe. Aoba47 (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query from Z1720

@DAP389: It has been over a month since the last comment. Is this ready to be closed and nominated to FAC? Z1720 (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Yes, feel free to close this. Will still modify the article further but sadly, I do not have the time to commit to a more comprehensive peer review. DAP 💅 22:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]