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

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've been working on this article for a long time, and I am trying to get it to GA status. I am new to this stuff and not too confident in my writing, so it would be great if anyone went through it to see if it reads well, give recommendations on how to improve it, and so on.

Thanks, Zingo156 (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had a chance to review the article and thought it was well written, well sourced and detailed. If I were to add any feedback, I would suggest being a bit more concise when giving details about the plot. It would help the article read a bit better as every detail about the plot is not needed, just an overview. Great job on spending the time to create this article. Jurisdicta (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I find the time to give this a thorough review, but here are at least some comments about the "Box office" section for starters:

• As of October 22, 2023 – I would wait to nominate this at WP:GAN until the initial theatrical run has concluded and made this "As of" unnecessary.
• Why mention both the projected opening gross and the actual one? Do the sources comment on the difference?
• over its first five days of release – box office figures are typically not reported for this time frame. There is actually a good reason to do so in this case, but it is not made clear to the reader.
• I don't see a strong reason to name the three movies the film opened behind—it seems like excessive detail to me—but it's not prohibited or anything.
• An entire paragraph is devoted to the box office performance in the US and Canada, but the rest of the world does not get any such treatment. This is a pretty clear example of WP:Systemic bias and would be an immediate showstopper at WP:GAN if I were to review the nomination there.

TompaDompa (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]