Talk:Life Is Sweet (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Life Is Sweet (film) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

[edit] Revamp

I have done what I can for the moment to upgrade this article, in terms of providing a synopsis and cast info as well as updating the infobox. I know that there is a great deal more to be done; I would appreciate it if someone could spell out exactly what. I found this article in a shocking state and I intend not to leave it until it's been upgraded at least from stub-class scale. Many thanks. Lexo (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Good job with your work so far. The best way to further improve this article to start class is to follow the instructions within the above film banner. Just click on "Show" for "Editing Guidelines", and there are instructions on what type of information should be added to the article for it to improve. It appears this article just needs a more well-developed intro, two other sections of information (such as a reception, production, soundtrack, DVD release, etc.), and a category specifying the language of the film. Once these are added, it is likely that the article should be upgraded to start class. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have done my best to comply with these suggestions, and now think that article deserves at least another quality review. Lexo (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Good job on your efforts in improving the article. It looks a lot better than what was initially there. I just realized that I had added the movie poster back in April of last year! For the reviews section, I'd recommend adding the rating from RottenTomatoes and Metacritic if there is one. Also, see if there are any negative reviews as well, to help ensure that the article remains neutral. The next step is to bring it up to B-class, and it will require further expansion of the current sections and/or addition of new ones. Also continue to add new sources for verification of the information presented. Good job so far, and if you want a review for B class, make sure to nominate it again. Again, good job and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these suggestions. I'm sure that there were negative reviews for the film, if only because I remember not liking it all that much myself when it first came out (I've changed my mind since), but I can't find any on the internet. With the Guardian review, all I could find was the star rating; the film itself came out before the Guardian began to keep an online archive of its reviews. I will look for the rottentomatoes and metacritic ratings. One thing I think is true but need to find a verifiable source for is that this was Leigh's breakthrough movie, the one that got him major international attention for the first time. There just isn't a lot of available information on this film out there. I can see I'm going to have to splash out on a copy of 'Leigh on Leigh', to get more anecdotal (but at least published) info on the making of the film. Lexo (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, looking at RottenTomatoes, it looks like it has a 100% rating, so I doubt you'll find any negative reviews there. If you can't find any online, then don't worry about it. By the way, make sure not to delete information on talk pages as it should be kept for historical interest. I readded the prior sections. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

'Historical interest'? I can't imagine a conversation between editors about the process of improving an encylopedia article about an obscure British film is of significant historical interest. But you've got more awards than me, so I'm not going to un-revert your revert. Lexo (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that it's been put up for re-assessment again. Unfortunately, given the current state of the article, it doesn't appear to have progressed far enough for B-class. The two main issues are the Cultural references section, which appears to violate WP:TRIVIA (as well as being largely uncited), and the usage of the IMDb for references. (Unfortunately the IMDb is not regarded as a reliable source.) The latter shouldn't be too difficult to deal with, since most of the information it supports should be amply available within other more reliable sources, but the former may require a considerable amount of rewriting. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films is remarkably slack about removing citations from other film articles that use IMDb as a source. I would like to know exactly why it isn't considered a reliable source; until someone gives me a good reason, the links stay. Also, kindly inform me how to cite the film itself as a source for a quote. Trivia sections are annoying, but a cultural reference is a cultural reference. Lexo (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the some of the cultural references but, after thinking about it, put one of them back as I think you are mistaken in your belief that it violates WP:TRIVIA. The 'fallen in the water' line is inexplicable to anyone who does not recognise it as a reference to the Goon Show, a category that I imagine would include many US viewers of the movie. If this article is not to be permitted to make the reference, even though it identifies the source of the line in question, purely because to do so violates (in the opinion of one editor) guidelines against Trivia sections, then so much the worse for the guidelines. Lexo (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)