# Talk:Nine Days (film)

While I commend the details in the rest of the article body, I see that the "Critical response" section does not reference any individual reviews at all. I'm not sure why this article was nominated for Good Article status with this underdeveloped section? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Critical_reception says "detailed commentary from reliable sources regarding the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) is encouraged" but not necessary, though I'll unnominate it and expand. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Maybe a better term could be used, but that line is intended to encourage the addition of coverage that summarizes what critics thought. For example, for Panic Room, a chapter about that film covered what critics thought, and I recapped it this way: "Critics called Panic Room 'a high-tension narrative'. They compared the film to the works of Alfred Hitchcock, both positively and negatively. Several critics thought the film was too mainstream after Fincher's Fight Club." Rotten Tomatoes's critics' consensus is probably the typical default coverage for that kind of summary. Maybe it's always gone without saying to sample individual reviews, so the MOS never needed to say, please include them. If you thought that guideline was confusing, we can talk at WT:MOSFILM about phrasing it differently. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Also, while this is not in the guidelines, I like to use Metacritic's distribution of positive, mixed, and negative reviews for balancing a section with individual reviews. It says 20 positive and five mixed (with zero negative), so proportionally, you could sample four positive reviews and one mixed. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)