Talk:How to Blow Up a Pipeline (film)

How to Blow Up a Pipeline (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 24, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 30 August 2022 by reviewer Bearcat (talk · contribs).

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7ba88/how-to-blow-up-a-pipeline-q-and-a-daniel-goldhaber-ariela-barer

Possibly inappropriate link under 'plot'

Under the 'plot' heading, there's a passage that mentions Theo has been diagnosed with leukemia. The words 'diagnosed with leukemia' directly link to a story about families suffering from cancer in California.

Does this violate WP:JUSTPLOT? Is it inappropriate in any other way? It just looks wrong to me. Cadenrock1 (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:How to Blow Up a Pipeline (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 18:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3a) I couldn't find any estimates for the film's budget.

5) Regarding the number of Rotten Tomatoes reviews and the box office take for the film:

Box Office Mojo, a reliable source included in many GA and FA-rated film articles, says that the film grossed $882,348 worldwide.

Rotten Tomatoes lists 147 critic reviews for the film.

I had not noticed the back-and-forth editing, but these should both be easily resolved, no? Mooonswimmer 15:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, please update the article to reflect those sources.

The lack of a budget number is unfortunate, but if it doesn't exist anywhere in reliable sources, there's nothing we can do. It's definitely a big missing piece for an article about a movie, however. If you ever do find one, that'd be great. I'll also have a hunt. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mooonswimmer: looks like we're just about there. A few source improvements and, if it's available, a little expansion are all that's left to do. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'm very excited!

I've added all the missing elements to the citations you listed and a few more. Question: do I link the publication in every citation, whenever possible? For example, if there are 3 different The Guardian articles cited, do I link to The Guardian in each citation, or just the first one?

"If it is available, a little more detail about the film's box office performance would be useful. How long was it in theaters? How many theaters at peak, or per theater average? Any countries outside the US where it did particularly well? Was its box office performance considered satisfactory or disappointing?"

1) How long was it in theaters: 107 days/15 weeks

2) How many theaters at peak: 530 theaters (week of April 21, 2023)

3) Per theater average: $9,621/theater in its first week (week of April 7, 2003) and $482/theater during its widest release

4) Grossed $23,955 in Norway (52 theaters at its peak, ran for 8 weeks), $1,863 in Turkey (3 theaters at its peak, ran for 3 weeks, $106,520 in the UK (144 theaters at its peak, ran for 13 weeks)

All per Box Office Mojo. I can't seem to find anything regarding if the filmmakers/producers/distributors considered the BO performance satisfactory or disappointing.

During its domestic theatrical run, How to Blow Up a Pipeline was shown in theaters for 107 days, equivalent to 15 weeks. At its peak, the film was screened in 530 theaters during the week of April 21, 2023. In its opening week, the film made $153,475 across 12 theaters, achieving a per-theater average of $12,789. During its widest release, the per-theater average dropped to $482.

Internationally, the film grossed $23,955 in Norway, where it reached its peak presence in 52 theaters and ran for 8 weeks. In Turkey, it earned $1,863, with a peak presence in 3 theaters and a run time of 3 weeks. In the United Kingdom, the film grossed $106,520, with a peak presence in 144 theaters and a run time of 13 weeks.

Does this work? Mooonswimmer 00:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good! No luck finding anything at all on the budget, then? Even non-numeric descriptors like "small" or "low-cost"? —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No luck finding any solid figures unfortunately. A few sources use descriptors like "low budget" (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette: "(hats off to crew working on a low budget)") and "small budget" (Reason Magazine: "Not only is it a tense, terse, small-budget heist-style thriller..."). Mooonswimmer 00:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporate whichever you think is best and then I think we're in good shape. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about a simple "The film has been described as small-budget." at the end of the first paragraph in the "Production" section? Should we attribute it to Reason? Mooonswimmer 00:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That works. Reason is listed as generally reliable at WP:RSP, so that's fine. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Mooonswimmer 01:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article meets the GA standard. Congrats to you and to anyone else who worked on this article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	As is my usual practice, I'll go through and make any small tweaks myself to save us both time. If there are any you object to, let me know. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Cite #4 (Russek) is missing a publisher/website (The Nation) Cite #6 (Kuplowsky) needs similar improvements, missing parameters Cite #7 (Malm) could use a publisher and maybe location of publication Cite #13 (Kay) is missing a publisher/website (ScreenDaily) Cite #30 (Kline) should be 'National Post' and linked, not nationalpost Cite #31 (manifesto) is missing an author Cite #33 (Activists inspired) is missing an author Please check for any other missing elements in citations and add them as well. Issues addressed, pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, none detected, plot summary is covered under policy.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig, hold for manual spot check. Nothing found by manual spot check, AGF on others, pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Is a reliable estimate of the film's budget/cost available? If it is available, a little more detail about the film's box office performance would be useful. How long was it in theaters? How many theaters at peak, or per theater average? Any countries outside the US where it did particularly well? Was its box office performance considered satisfactory or disappointing? Issue addressed, pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass, no issues apart from some mild trimming of the plot and themes sections that I will do under prose.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Removed a few long paraphrases that were essentially in the director's voice, from an interview, which I feel were a little non-neutral. Pass with these modifications.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Some recent back-and-forth editing about the number of Rotten Tomatoes reviews and the box office take for the film. What's going on there? Issue addressed, pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass, no issues.
	7. Overall assessment.

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.