# Talk:Cry Macho (film)

The budget for this film seems to be $33 million according to Variety a usually very reliable source.[1] In this particularly case and this particular film the sourcing is very good quality, but that is unusual and in most film articles the source is not so good and frequently far more unclear. 
It is important to clearly verify sources, and Wikipedia:Verifiability states:  "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports" 
WP:INFOBOXREF "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious."
I can see why some might think that applies to budget figures in the infobox but Wikipedia editors have a terrible habit of inventing budget figures or frequently using unreliable sources, and then there's plain old vandalism. Based on vandalism alone it is absolutely necessary to make the budget sources clear and easy to check with an inline reference in the Infobox. I do not see anything to suggest that the style guidelines of WP:INFOBOXREF take precedence over the principle of WP:VERIFICATION and urge the reference be restored. (Please revert this diff) -- 109.79.162.117 (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@109.79.162.117: WP:INFOBOXREF suggests citing information in the body of the article rather than in the infobox. The budget has been reported to be $33 million. This is not being "challenged" and it is not "likely to be challenged." As a result, I added the information to #Production and included the source from Variety. A citation to the infobox is now unnecessary since WP:V is already met with a citation from a reliable source. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:V calls for clarity and WP:INFOBOXREF says "if the information is obvious" (and obviousness is subjective) but I've the made argument very difficult for myself because I have no reason to challenge the budget in this specific article. Many articles fail to include the budget anywhere in the article at all. Variety is a most reliable source so I cannot say the citation is strictly necessary but nonetheless I would say it would be better if it was included anyway for clarity and ease of verification and obviousness. This case is exceptional and I'll let the matter rest for this article, but in general, I see nothing to suggest that the style guidelines take precedence over the principle of clearly verifying sources, especially when it comes to budgets that are all too often inaccurate or unreliably sourced. -- 109.79.162.117 (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't even realise that User:TropicAces had conincidentally also added a reference for the budget to the Infobox only hours before me.[2] -- 109.79.162.117 (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This makes me wonder if it may be time to reconsider how movies' financial successes and failures are presented on WP. From this article, one could get the idea this film was a failure—but was it? It mentions its budget—what is that the production budget only, or does it include its marketing budget? It mentions how much it made at the box office, but also that it was streamed on HBO. It doesn't mention (at least I didn't see it) that it's now streaming on Netflix, which I believe is a much bigger market. Are figures paid for streaming rights ever public knowledge? Can anyone really tell how much a film like this makes or loses? – AndyFielding (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cry Macho (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Eviolite (talk · contribs) 14:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take a look at and review this later today. eviolite (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Notes:

Earwig pops up with an IMDB user review but it was written after the plot summary here. Otherwise just quotes, so no copyvio issues.
Generally complies well with MOS guidelines on fiction; the distinction between the fictional and real world is very clear.
Is Film Music Reporter a RS? Seems to be a SPS to me, looking at their website, though I'm not familiar with the topic area. Otherwise, sourcing is good.
Film Music Reporter is reliable (see this discussion from April 2021). Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Plot:

Plot summary is of a reasonable length (607 words).
Link cantina
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
"and they are forced to leave it" - consider removing "they"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about how Macho comes in at the end - this is the rooster, right? Did Rafo bring Macho along with him? Some clarification is probably warranted here.
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Background:

"N. Richard Nash's Macho was a screenplay rejected twice by 20th Century Fox in the 1970s." Can this be rewritten to avoid passive tone?
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
The source doesn't mention Fox specifically, and says "I sold the rights to one", not several - should be corrected.
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Production:

"that same month" - could the specific date (17th) be added?
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
"In an interview, Eastwood recalled several aspects of the production, including rehiring a young cast member who had received a false positive for the coronavirus and the many difficulties of filming scenes with Macho, the rooster in the film, who was played by 11 birds." is a pretty long and unwieldy sentence - could it be split?
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
"and said the wrangler was worried." - add "that" between "said" and "the"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Rework the quote incorporation so that Eastwood isn't referred to as both "he" and "I" in the same sentence.
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Release and marketing:

"In a statement" specify "to EW"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
"Reactions to the trailers were positive; while" - I don't know if "while" is the best word here since the reactions aren't entirely contrary to each other.
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Reception:

"Analytics" - which analytics? From what institution?
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
"Comscore analytic" - should be "Comscore analyst"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
"in its third" - "on its third"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Any reason that the ticket price is compared to those two films in particular?
They came out the same month. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Not an issue - just curious, but is including the demographics typical for film articles?
Yes (see Baby Driver, a featured article). Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Any data on which specific foreign markets it was popular in?
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Replace the idiom "raising the stakes" (MOS:WTW)
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
That's it for my comments; a generally nice and well-written article. @Some Dude From North Carolina: Putting on hold for now. eviolite (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Eviolite: All  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits and clarifications above - happy to promote this to GA. Great work, Some Dude From North Carolina! eviolite (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)