Talk:Precious (film): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:51, 30 May 2010

Precious (film) has been listed as one of the 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 6, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
January 27, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 21, 2009.

Current status: Good article

Film: American GA‑class

	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
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

New York City GA‑class Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

Box Office Section

I just completed a substantial overhaul of the "Box Office" section. It was badly in need of grammar, punctuation, and syntax correction. I also removed about half of the initial portion of the second paragraph, which detailed the fourth, fifth, and sixth weeks of "Precious'" theatrical release. There were several sentences detailing the rapid decline in box office revenues, and I decided to be bold and summarize the information, without individual statistics, in one transitional sentence. We can discuss whether or not those specific numbers are crucial to the article, but since most every film experiences a substantial decrease in revenue with each week of release, I do not think the information was necessary.

On another note, the revisions in sentence structure and modifier placement were all predicated on the accuracy of the information. I assumed that the numbers were correctly referenced, given that boxofficemojo.com is pretty accurate in its postings.Kp.murphy (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked on Box office Mojo, which is what the reference sited, and its no 65 for the year 2009 at 47 mil and change. So I made the correction. Its likely the previous figure included worldwide, which is not the usual way to do it. Unless, of course the movie is from a small country where domestic isn't the bulk of the profit. But in this case the bulk is domestic. It did not do too well in box office as far as I can tell, but it is critically acclaimed, and the article should reflect that.Lollipopfop (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse

didnt they say in the movie that the sexual abuse on precious started just days after coming home from the hostipal after birth didnt mary say that in the social workers office at the end

Cast

The girl's name is Consuelo, NOT Consuela. This is a Spanish name that, although female, breaks the -a ending for an 'o', Like Rosario. Stop changing it.207.38.156.111 (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Any background on the unusually long title? The article explains why Push weren't used, but why not just "Precious"? Did Sapphire demand it? 88.91.87.46 (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.87.46 (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 I just completed a substantial overhaul of the "Box Office" section.  It was badly in need of grammar, punctuation, and syntax correction.  I also removed about half of the initial portion of the second paragraph, which detailed the fourth, fifth, and sixth weeks of "Precious'" theatrical release.  There were several sentences detailing the rapid decline in box office revenues, and I decided to be bold and summarize the information, without individual statistics, in one transitional sentence.  We can discuss whether or not those specific numbers are crucial to the article, but since most every film experiences a substantial decrease in revenue with each week of release, I do not think the information was necessary.
 On another note, the revisions in sentence structure and modifier placement were all predicated on the accuracy of the information.  I assumed that the numbers were correctly referenced, given that boxofficemojo.com is pretty accurate in its postings.[[User:Kp.murphy|Kp.murphy]] ([[User talk:Kp.murphy|talk]]) 16:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
+ I checked on Box office Mojo, which is what the reference sited, and its no 65 for the year 2009 at 47 mil and change. So I made the correction. Its likely the previous figure included worldwide, which is not the usual way to do it. Unless, of course the movie is from a small country where domestic isn't the bulk of the profit. But in this case the bulk is domestic. It did not do too well in box office as far as I can tell, but it is critically acclaimed, and the article should reflect that.[[User:Lollipopfop|Lollipopfop]] ([[User talk:Lollipopfop|talk]]) 16:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 ==Abuse==