Talk:Cry Macho (film)

Requested move 16 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 02:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

---

• Cry Macho (film) → Cry Macho
• Cry Macho → Cry Macho (novel)

– When you look up "Cry Macho", most sources that come up are about the film. Additionally, page views show that the film has risen in popularity, therefore becoming the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 22:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Cry Macho → Cry Macho (novel) and would also support either Cry Macho (film) → Cry Macho or retention of Cry Macho (film) and conversion of Cry Macho into a disambiguation page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages aren't useful when there are only 2 pages (see this discussion as an example). Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 02:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has about 100,000 two-entry disambiguation pages. Thus, WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS to a very high degree (see Category:Disambiguation pages with short descriptions) and I have mentioned this fact at other two-entry RM discussions, such as Talk:Michael Reiter (police officer)#Requested move 7 August 2020, Talk:James Workman (rower)#Requested move 29 November 2020 or Talk:David Bowles (chief executive)#Requested move 12 December 2020. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:RECENTISM. The movie is not even out yet, and the book still surpasses it in long-term significance given that people have attempted to adapt it for decades. I'm not against revisiting this in a bit if it's clear the movie will wind up being more famous/influential than the book in the long term. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:RECENTISM. Since movie is not out yet In ictu oculi (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Budget

The budget for this film seems to be $33 million according to Variety a usually very reliable source.[1] In this particularly case and this particular film the sourcing is very good quality, but that is unusual and in most film articles the source is not so good and frequently far more unclear.

It is important to clearly verify sources, and Wikipedia:Verifiability states: "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports"
WP:INFOBOXREF "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious."

I can see why some might think that applies to budget figures in the infobox but Wikipedia editors have a terrible habit of inventing budget figures or frequently using unreliable sources, and then there's plain old vandalism. Based on vandalism alone it is absolutely necessary to make the budget sources clear and easy to check with an inline reference in the Infobox. I do not see anything to suggest that the style guidelines of WP:INFOBOXREF take precedence over the principle of WP:VERIFICATION and urge the reference be restored. (Please revert this diff) -- 109.79.162.117 (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@109.79.162.117: WP:INFOBOXREF suggests citing information in the body of the article rather than in the infobox. The budget has been reported to be $33 million. This is not being "challenged" and it is not "likely to be challenged." As a result, I added the information to #Production and included the source from Variety. A citation to the infobox is now unnecessary since WP:V is already met with a citation from a reliable source. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:V calls for clarity and WP:INFOBOXREF says "if the information is obvious" (and obviousness is subjective) but I've the made argument very difficult for myself because I have no reason to challenge the budget in this specific article. Many articles fail to include the budget anywhere in the article at all. Variety is a most reliable source so I cannot say the citation is strictly necessary but nonetheless I would say it would be better if it was included anyway for clarity and ease of verification and obviousness. This case is exceptional and I'll let the matter rest for this article, but in general, I see nothing to suggest that the style guidelines take precedence over the principle of clearly verifying sources, especially when it comes to budgets that are all too often inaccurate or unreliably sourced. -- 109.79.162.117 (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't even realise that User:TropicAces had conincidentally also added a reference for the budget to the Infobox only hours before me.[2] -- 109.79.162.117 (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This makes me wonder if it may be time to reconsider how movies' financial successes and failures are presented on WP. From this article, one could get the idea this film was a failure—but was it? It mentions its budget—what is that the production budget only, or does it include its marketing budget? It mentions how much it made at the box office, but also that it was streamed on HBO. It doesn't mention (at least I didn't see it) that it's now streaming on Netflix, which I believe is a much bigger market. Are figures paid for streaming rights ever public knowledge? Can anyone really tell how much a film like this makes or loses? – AndyFielding (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cry Macho (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eviolite (talk · contribs) 14:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take a look at and review this later today. eviolite (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

---

Notes:

• Earwig pops up with an IMDB user review but it was written after the plot summary here. Otherwise just quotes, so no copyvio issues.
• Generally complies well with MOS guidelines on fiction; the distinction between the fictional and real world is very clear.
• Is Film Music Reporter a RS? Seems to be a SPS to me, looking at their website, though I'm not familiar with the topic area. Otherwise, sourcing is good.
  • Film Music Reporter is reliable (see this discussion from April 2021). Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Plot:

• Plot summary is of a reasonable length (607 words).
• Link cantina
  •  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• "and they are forced to leave it" - consider removing "they"
  •  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• I'm a bit confused about how Macho comes in at the end - this is the rooster, right? Did Rafo bring Macho along with him? Some clarification is probably warranted here.
  •  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Background:

• "N. Richard Nash's Macho was a screenplay rejected twice by 20th Century Fox in the 1970s." Can this be rewritten to avoid passive tone?
  •  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• The source doesn't mention Fox specifically, and says "I sold the rights to one", not several - should be corrected.
  •  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Production:

• "that same month" - could the specific date (17th) be added?
  •  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• "In an interview, Eastwood recalled several aspects of the production, including rehiring a young cast member who had received a false positive for the coronavirus and the many difficulties of filming scenes with Macho, the rooster in the film, who was played by 11 birds." is a pretty long and unwieldy sentence - could it be split?
  •  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• "and said the wrangler was worried." - add "that" between "said" and "the"
  •  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Rework the quote incorporation so that Eastwood isn't referred to as both "he" and "I" in the same sentence.
  •  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Release and marketing:

• "In a statement" specify "to EW"
  •  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• "Reactions to the trailers were positive; while" - I don't know if "while" is the best word here since the reactions aren't entirely contrary to each other.
  •  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Reception:

• "Analytics" - which analytics? From what institution?
  •  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• "Comscore analytic" - should be "Comscore analyst"
  •  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• "in its third" - "on its third"
  •  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Any reason that the ticket price is compared to those two films in particular?
  • They came out the same month. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Not an issue - just curious, but is including the demographics typical for film articles?
  • Yes (see Baby Driver, a featured article). Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Any data on which specific foreign markets it was popular in?
  •  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Replace the idiom "raising the stakes" (MOS:WTW)
  •  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

That's it for my comments; a generally nice and well-written article. @Some Dude From North Carolina: Putting on hold for now. eviolite (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Eviolite: All  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits and clarifications above - happy to promote this to GA. Great work, Some Dude From North Carolina! eviolite (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Director, producer, and actor Clint Eastwood

• ... that the lead role in the 2021 film Cry Macho was first offered to Clint Eastwood in 1988? Source: [3]
  • ALT1: ... that it took four decades and a number of failed attempts to bring Cry Macho to the big screen? Source: [4]
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/2021 North Kosovo crisis

Improved to Good Article status by Some Dude From North Carolina (talk). Self-nominated at 00:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Recent GA article is long enough, sourced and neutral. Earwig is picking up a lot of copyvio but most of it seems to be other sites copying Wikipedia. The IMDB review and Uselessdaily.com are two examples. The picture looks good at 100x, is free to use and in the article. Both hooks are interesting, but I added a different source for ALT1 since the first source doesn't seem to mention it. All this needs now is a qpq. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@BuySomeApples: Added Template:Did you know nominations/2021 North Kosovo crisis. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Awesome, this nom's a-go! BuySomeApples (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

ALT0 to T:DYK/P3 without image