Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go at this one that's been languishing in the queue for 6 months. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll respond to your comments within the next few hours. ℛonherry☘ 14:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

• The English is pretty much fine. I suspect that "Maligning the film as 'downright cringey'" is straying too close to an opinion: suggest "Calling the film 'downright..." would be better.

• Structure is largely suitable, though a brief paragraph of 'Context' about Delia Owens and her novel would improve the article (indeed, it's probably a "main aspect" that needs to be covered). It is (very) rare among zoologists to write a bestselling novel; just as rare for an ecosystem to star in a novel. I think we need a few words about the North Carolina marshes (how about a photo?), the zoologist and her work, that she lived for a while in North Carolina, and the novel. Nobody is suggesting that the novel (or film) is autobiographical, but some critic must have mentioned that the biology/natural history in the story is convincingly realistic because it's based on knowledge.

• Amount of plot is reasonable. I do think the friendly retired defence attorney deserves a brief mention, however, given the importance the film gives to the courtroom drama.

• Is it still relevant to 'Production' that the project was announced on January 25, 2021? I'd have thought the announcement was superseded by the fact that the production went ahead. The "was announced ... would join" tangle of tricky tenses can go: let's just say the actors took part.

• I wonder if the difference in emphasis between film and book doesn't deserve slightly more of a mention; at the moment it's dealt with in passing via a couple of comments in Reception. Are there no more detailed analyses we could use?

• There isn't any "detailed" analyses I could find. Just some minor details that is already covered by the section. ℛonherry☘ 15:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• All right. The article can always be worked on further, the advantage of being a constantly-maintained online encyclopedia.

• The 'Critical response' rightly mentions that critics gave the film a B and called it "a smallish movie". It doesn't really explain why the film has this character, something that seems necessary if the article is to cover "the main aspects" (criterion 3a).

• I do not understand this. Would you mind elaborating please? ℛonherry☘ 15:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure what happened there, the section is fine and detailed.

• I don't want to say that the 'Accolades' section is overblown, but I can't help noticing that a) none of the nominations have resulted in an award, and b) 10 of the 12 nominations were for a Song, not the film. I'd be inclined to take the Song items out of the table and format them compactly in a single sentence, i.e. "Taylor Swift's song "Carolina" received 10 nominations for best song.[ref/footnote]" and then format the 10 items in a list either directly in a single ref, or in a footnote which itself has 10 refs.

• Further, the ceremony dates are now all in the past, so the four "Pending" entries now need to be updated.

• Apart from a tiny bit of the usual vandalism, the article is entirely stable. Roll on user registration.

• Film poster has valid NFUR.

• Other images seem to be correctly licensed on Commons.

• Spotchecks are all good.

@Chiswick Chap:  Done all. ℛonherry☘ 15:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]