What makes Film Music Reporter a high-quality reference? I think even its reliability is in question as perhaps a self-published source, but the threads I've seen at WP:RSN (one you started) seem unclear on it. That being said, even if it is reliable, what makes it high quality? Urve (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've trusted Film Music Reporter for a long time since there has been no evidence of them giving false information since they started publishing in 2010. All of their reports are styled like press releases given by studios, and again, they have been reliable for more than a decade. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, wanted to hear your side given that the RSN discussions weren't conclusive. Urve (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would replace "the project" in this part, who produced the project with Jeremy Latcham through, as it is more concise and I think the current word choice is a little awkward.
I have a comment on this part, with additional filming taking place in the United States. I have been told in the past to avoid the "with X verb-ing" sentence structure, especially for featured articles, so I would revise this out and revise out any other instances of this in the article.
I am not sure that Russell Crowe's part is notable enough to be mentioned in the lead. He ultimately was not a part of the film despite being attached to it. The casting switch from Crowe to Jon Hamm just seems rather trivial, especially since a good deal of the lead's second paragraph is about this.
This might just be personal preference, but I would use box-office bomb instead of box-office flop. The word "flop" seems too informal for Wikipedia (at least in my opinion), and I have seen the bomb version more often used in this context.
This may not be necessary, but would it be helpful to link hippie in the plot summary? It is a very recognizable word and concept for sure, but it may be helpful for readers who may only have a superficial grasp on it and might want to get a deeper understanding. Plus, I have been told links can help to keep readers engaged (but I am honestly not sure if that is true or not). It may also be helpful to link parole for a similar reason.
Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For this part, to rescue Emily's hostage, who is revealed to be Emily's younger sister, Rose, would it be possible to replace the second instance of "Emily's" with "her" as I would think it would be clear from context and it would cut down on repetition.
I do not think the word "brutalizes" really works in this part, brutalizes half of Miller's face. I have more often seen this word used in the context of brutalizing a person, not a part of a person specifically, so I think a different word would be better here.
I am not really sure what "this" is referencing in this sentence: Before this, Emily had forcibly removed her sister from a murderous cult. Could you clarify this "this"?
Is it really necessary to include all those images in the "Cast" section. Although I could see why it is nice, the images somewhat awkwardly cut outside of the article (so that Nick Offerman is completely off the page). Would there be a way to avoid this?
I believe for quotes like the following, "mashes together a whole wealth of genres and delivers an utterly unique, unpredictable, and unexpected movie that never stays still long enough to be anything but itself.", the punctuation should on the outside of the quotation marks as you not quoting the full sentence.
I am a little confused on how sources are attributed in the prose. For instance, the "Deconstruction" section has two different style. One sentence has the publication and writer (Kyle Kizu from The Hollywood Reporter), but in another sentence, only the publication (The A.V. Club) is referenced without any mention of the writer. This made more confusing as the writer for The A.V. Club citation is attributed in the prose in a later section rather than when the source is first mentioned in the prose. I would be consistent with either include the writer's name in the prose or not. If you do, I would include the name on the first instance you bring it up in the prose and not later on.
These are my comments up to the "Themes and analysis" section. Apologies in advance for doing a piecemeal approach for my review. I just want to make sure I am reading the article thoroughly and helping out as much as possible. My above comments are rather nitpick-y with the exception of the final point. Once all my comments are addressed above, I will continue to read through the article and I will collapse the addressed comments. I hope you have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is entirely necessary to include the actor after the character name in the "Right and wrong" subsection and the "Crisis of faith" section as this is already clear in the "Cast" section.
I have a question for this part, a "stand-in for purgatory", the Catholic belief in a location where sinners are given a chance "to earn their way to heaven". Is the definition for purgatory necessary? I can see how it can be helpful for unfamiliar readers, but it also seems like a widely-know concept. I am not saying you have to remove it, but this was something I asked myself when I got to this part.
I have a comment about repeating citations for multiple sentences in a row. For instance, the Ciara Wardlow paragraph in the "Crisis of faith" subsection is all one citation. I do not think it is necessary to repeat the citation for each individual sentence as having it only at the end should make it clear that everything above it is cited through the citation. I do not know if this is required or not, but it was something I noticed and wanted to bring to your attention at least.
I still do not think it is entirely necessary, but as long as you are consistent with it, then you should be fine. Aoba47 (talk) 06:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This part, as he had been rumored in 2001, is a little odd to me. I believe that the rumors of a Kennedy/Monroe affair were around before 2001, although I could be wrong. But, it just seems odd to mention such a specific year for this.
I am uncertain that the Russell Crowe image. It places in my opinion an undue weight on his part in the film's production. It would make more sense to me to have the image of Erivo down here as there's an entire paragraph about her casting.
This article uses Template:Clear quite a bit. I am by no means an expert on images (and I am in fact not very good at them at all), but I would ask editors who are familiar with images and the FAC process to see if it is okay to use this template in a FA.
For this part, the scene took an entire day between twenty-seven takes, I would add a link to the take article to help readers who may not be familiar or entirely comfortable with film terminology.
I have a comment about the FOX link. I have more so seen the network typed as Fox, although the article does mention it is stylized in caps. I am just not sure if it should or needs to be in all caps here.
That seems good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 06:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider the film noir link in "[betting] on noir nostalgia" an Easter egg. The linked text makes it look like it will go to an article about the nostalgia for noir or retrospective attitudes about it so I was surprised that it was just to the film noir article instead. I would limit the link to just the "noir" part to avoid this.
Would it be possible to revise this sentence, Following negative test screening scores when audiences were given a viewing of the film with a low runtime, 20th Century Fox decided to theatrically release Bad Times at the El Royale with a 141-minute runtime on October 5, 2018., to avoid having runtime repeated twice in the same sentence?
I do not think it is necessary or particularly helpful to include a critic's letter or star grade for the film in the prose, as done in Kate Rife, from The A.V. Club, gave it a "B", as I find it more helpful to just summarize and best represent their opinion through the prose. The grade really does not mean much to me. The only times I would put the scores in the prose is for review aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes.
I have a question about the "Critical response" section. How did you structure it? The first paragraph has a clear focus, but the remaining three do not seem clearly focused to me. I would look at the following essay (WP:RECEPTION) as I always find it to be an incredibly useful resource as reception sections can be quite difficult to write well.
I have actually decided to complete my review in one go. The article is engaging and well-written. These should be my full review for the article. Some of my notes are more so questions than suggestions for changes (like the use of Template:Clear and having the accolades represented in a table). If possible, I would greatly appreciate any input on my FAC about Veronica Clare, which interestingly enough is also heavily based on film noir. I understand if you do not have the time or interest as reviewing does take time and energy. I hope you are doing well and staying safe. Aoba47 (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your responses to my review. Good luck with the rest of the peer review and please let me know when you put this up for a FAC. I am collapsing my comments so they do not take up as much space and so they do not deter any other editors from participating here. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence seems to only acknowledge the Saturn Awards, initially I thought it only got in that award. Would suggest change to "It received several accolades, including winning Best Thriller Film at the 45th Saturn Awards and being nominated for its story, cinematography, writing, and acting."
"Flynn invites Sweet"-- usually in plots, first names are used, so in this case "Daniel invites Darlene". Why is here otherwise?
"and reveals to him the secret passageway"-- change "passageway" to "corridor" for consistency.
"he arrived in disguise"-- "arrived" to "arrives".
Mostly Done except for the last point. "he arrived in disguise to retrieve the money hidden by his brother Felix" sounds better since this is a reveal, meaning the events already happened ("he arrived"). Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Aoba47; the images seems to be vague. If readers wanna see the cast's faces, they can click on their respective articles. I would use a promotional photo as a replacement, if there is, or a screenshot from the film featuring all the main cast.
Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)