Talk:Life Is Sweet (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Revamp[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
'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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Article rating criteria[edit]

I have decided not to bother submitting any more versions of this article for upgrading, as it's clear to me that the rating criteria are unsatisfactory. The criteria only respect huge amounts of published data on a film, and if the sources for the data are good but there aren't many of them, then the people who decide about the upgrade will not grant one purely because not enough published sources can be found. I think this is foolish and am no longer prepared to put myself through the pointless and humiliating process of submitting articles for grading by people who know less about the subject matter than I do. Lexo (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Life Is Sweet (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cast[edit]

Why is Stephen Rea not listed in the cast section? Hayal12 (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Hayal12[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Life_Is_Sweet_(film)&oldid=1203590451"