User:Erik/Best practices

Below are what I consider best practices for writing articles about films and articles about cast and crew members. The best practices outlined below are intended to complement Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film.

Audiences versus critics

Avoid having both critical reception and audience reception in the same sentence or paragraph since per WP:SYNTH, this implies the conclusion that these two outcomes should be compared. Audience reception is what is measured from opening-weekend audiences who are self-selecting. In contrast, critics review films as part of their profession, whether or not they actually want to see the film. As an example, opening-weekend audiences went to see Brad Pitt in Killing Them Softly and gave it an "F" grade since it was not the kind of film they expected.

The "Critical reception" section should not include audience reception since it is intended for how critics received the film. Including audience reception implies a conclusion as explained above. Audience reception instead belongs with other release and box office details since reliable sources write about a positive opening-weekend reception being correlated to subsequent box office performance.

Production budget versus box office gross

Avoid having both the production budget and the box office gross in the same sentence or paragraph since per WP:SYNTH, this implies the conclusion that these two numbers should be compared. This synthesized sentence usually appears in the lead section. The implication of this sentence's framing is whether or not the film broke even. It omits other factors such as prints and advertising (P&A), tax breaks, and distribution sales. Editors should cover the production budget in the part of the lead section that covers other production details and cover the box office gross in the part that covers release details. Where sources exist, the aforementioned additional factors and commentary about a film's fiscal success or failure should be covered in the article body and summarized in the lead section.

First sentences about films

The first sentence for an article about the film should put the topic in context for non-specialist readers per WP:LEAD. Context varies by film, and WP:FILMLEAD recommends only the following: "At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its earliest public release (including film festival screenings), and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified." Historically, the director is routinely named in the first sentence, as well as similar credits like writers and producers, but no policy or guideline requires this approach. While some directors are well-known enough that naming them upfront is a foregone conclusion, there are many directors who are not as well-known to non-specialist readers. In some of these cases, it is possible for the more noteworthy context to be other elements such as the source material or the starring actor(s). The noteworthiness of certain elements can often be found in reliable sources writing about the film and how they introduce the topic.

Relevant policies and guidelines

Parts of policies and guidelines that support the above:

• MOS:OPEN: "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it."
• MOS:FIRST:

• "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where."
• "For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence."

• MOS:CONTEXTLINK: "The first sentence should provide links to the broader or more elementary topics that are important to the article's topic or place it into the context where it is notable."
• WP:UNDUE: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery." (emphasis mine)

Examples

Examples of the above being applied:

• About Last Night (2014 film): "About Last Night is a 2014 American romantic comedy film starring Kevin Hart, Michael Ealy, Regina Hall and Joy Bryant."
• Bros (film): "Bros is a 2022 American romantic comedy film starring Billy Eichner and Luke Macfarlane as two gay men in Manhattan who avoid commitment but are drawn to each other."
• Enola Holmes (film): "Enola Holmes is a 2020 mystery film starring Millie Bobby Brown as the title character, the teenage sister of the already famous Victorian-era detective Sherlock Holmes."
• The Good Nurse: "The Good Nurse is a 2022 American drama film starring Jessica Chastain and Eddie Redmayne and features the serial killer Charles Cullen and the fellow nurse who suspects him."
• Prey for the Devil: "Prey for the Devil is a 2022 American supernatural horror film about a nun who trains as an exorcist under the Roman Catholic Church and confronts demonic possession."
• Ticket to Paradise (2022 film): "Ticket to Paradise is a 2022 romantic comedy film starring George Clooney and Julia Roberts as a divorced couple who team up to sabotage the impending wedding of their daughter in Bali."
• The Woman King: "The Woman King is a 2022 American historical epic film about the Agojie, the all-female warrior unit that protected the West African kingdom of Dahomey during the 17th to 19th centuries."

Considerations

• Biopics: A biographical film about a notable figure should likely identify the figure in the first sentence.
• Companies: Sometimes the first sentence or two will list the companies involved with the film, and if these are not noteworthy elements, then it would be WP:UNDUE weight to place them prominently. It also runs afoul of WP:PROMO in sounding like a press release. That said, certain companies may be the most noteworthy elements in some cases, like with Pixar films, A24 films, and some Netflix films.
• Franchise: Franchise films should likely identify the relevant franchise in the first sentence.
• Premise: Films with no particular noteworthy context may best benefit from identifying the film's premise in the first sentence. Otherwise, the order of noteworthy contexts may not matter and ultimately not make a difference.
• Retrospective: Noteworthy contexts for a film may change over time, and the first sentence can be updated accordingly based on retrospective reliable sources. For example, the retrospective noteworthy context for Wings (1927 film) is being the film that won the first Academy Award for Best Picture.
• Sequels: Sequel films should likely identify the preceding film in the first sentence, especially if the film's title is not clear about how the film relates to its predecessor.
• Titular characters: A film whose title refers to a notable figure (real or fictional) should likely identify that figure.

• Depending on the film, if a notable figure is being identified in the first sentence, the actor who plays them should likely be named too. (Note: Articles about superhero films are often failing to do this, unfortunately, instead opening with naming companies over other contexts in what comes off as WP:PROMO-violating press releases.)

Filmography

While most best practices are for articles about films, this best practice is more for articles about actors and filmmakers. "Filmography" should not be used as a section heading when the person has credits other than those for films. A filmography is a list of films, and the well-detailed Wikipedia article for "filmography" supports this definition. I have found other reliable sources to support this definition. This heading is commonplace on Wikipedia, and it may have to do with IMDb using the same heading even as it included TV and video-game credits. At the start of December 2022, however, IMDb revamped their website and changed the heading from "Filmography" to "Credits". Wikipedia should follow suit for credits that are not just film.

That said, there are other and better terms to use as a section heading. My current preference is "Credits", but there could be other broad terms that are similarly appropriate.

Red links

Wikipedia's guideline on red links says in a nutshell, "Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. Only remove red links if you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject." In mainstream film articles, many articles on films and related cast and crew have been created. However, two areas where red links tend to happen are the films' source material and non-director crew members. Due to the relative rarity of red links in a sea of otherwise blue links, some editors think red links should be de-linked either on the grounds that an article does not exist or because they look out of place. However, the guideline is clear about not removing red links for these reasons, and they should only be removed if there appears to be no reliably sourced coverage about the topic. A simple search engine test can be performed to see about whether or not to add (or restore) a red link, and editors who have removed red links should be informed of the guidelines.

Review aggregators

Many film articles reference the review aggregators Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic in "Critical reception" sections. We should think more critically about how to write "Critical reception" sections. First, the goal of the section is to tell the reader how critics received the film. There are two ways to tell this: 1.) as a whole, and 2.) what certain critics thought specifically. It could be possible to only tell the critical reception as a whole, but this requires substantial analysis from secondary sources that identify the various trends. This is very uncommon, at least until natural language processing can process reviews and summarize them for us. In the meantime, we really only reference individual reviews because we often cannot describe the critical reception as a whole in much detail. In essence, we try to give readers a sample set of what individual critics thought of a film.

For referencing individual reviews, review aggregators can help indicate the WP:BALANCE of reviews in terms of if they loved the film, liked it, felt lukewarm, disliked it, or hated it (and in between). However, we must remember what review aggregators actually are. They are commercial products intended to tell consumers if a film is worth seeing or not. They are not specifically intended to provide a non-commercial summary based on an in-depth review of multiple reviews. The two most prominent review aggregators are critiqued below.

Metacritic

Metacritic aggregates reviews and categorizes a review as positive, mixed, or negative. The number of reviews that it aggregates is smaller than Rotten Tomatoes, being around 50-60 at most. (For comparison, Rotten Tomatoes aggregates up to 380-390 reviews.) Metacritic... (to be continued)

Rotten Tomatoes

Rotten Tomatoes aggregates reviews for a film, and for each review, it only identifies if the review was positive or negative. There is no in-between, and there is no indication if the critic liked it or loved it, or if they disliked it or hated it. To illustrate how this is an over-simplification, we can compare two films and use Metacritic (which categorizes reviews as positive, negative, or mixed and gives a weighted average score):

• The Avengers (2012 film) has 91% on Rotten Tomatoes and has 69 out of 100 on Metacritic.
• Gravity (2013 film) has 96% on Rotten Tomatoes and has 96 out of 100 on Metacritic.

Looking only at Rotten Tomatoes, with both films being in the 90th percentile, it looks like critics loved both The Avengers and Gravity. Looking at Metacritic too, we can tell that critics liked The Avengers but loved Gravity.

While Rotten Tomatoes shows the "average rating" for a film on a scale of 1 to 10, it does not publicly show every review's actual rating. Some listed reviews will show a rating, while others will show a letter grade, while others will show nothing. If we look at the average ratings for the above case, we see 8.1 for The Avengers and 8.9 for Gravity. While we do not know the distribution of the ratings, these average ratings are closer than the overall scores to the "truth" of how critics received a film. Unfortunately, it is commonplace for film articles to display the overall scores more prominently than the average ratings in a way that extends the commercial nature of Rotten Tomatoes. We should avoid perpetuating that commercial factor and use the relevant information in this non-commercial encyclopedia to write in a historical perspective about how critics received the film and not cater to contemporary moviegoers.

Another downside to Rotten Tomatoes is that while the "critics' consensus" that it publishes can be used to help determine the WP:BALANCE of reviews and what elements in these reviews to expand on, the consensus is published early on in the film's release and is only based on the first reviews. To show an example, Black Panther: Wakanda Forever has 84% on Rotten Tomatoes based on 389 reviews. Rotten Tomatoes reports the critics' consensus, "A poignant tribute that satisfyingly moves the franchise forward, Black Panther: Wakanda Forever marks an ambitious and emotionally rewarding triumph for the MCU." The Internet Archive shows that this was reported when there were 127 reviews, as seen here. Rotten Tomatoes is interested in telling its consumers right away what critics thought of a film. It has no incentive to wait until most reviews are aggregated before determining a consensus.

Conclusion

(to be written)