Talk:About Last Night (2014 film)

Partial revert
, I am reverting some of your edits to the article as seen here because I do not think they are improvements. Here are my thoughts: Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The "Starring" field is based on the film poster's billing block, which is an appropriate rule of thumb for inclusion
 * The lead section is supposed to summarize the key points in the article body (and keep in mind that the article will grow, making the summary more desirable)
 * We need to directly attribute quoted statements, especially considering how promotional it sounds
 * While not required, I think it is best to have an introduction to the "Production" section so it can serve as a stand-alone section. In my opinion, readers could easily jump straight to that section and not have the context needed for that section.


 * First, the movie postsr only shows the 4 actors I left as stars of the film. Second, every statement I removed is already stated somewhere else in the article. Third, the synopsis doesn't need quotation or a statement of where it was found, you can refer to the reference for that. In my edit summary I said some clean up, which I did. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HENDAWG229 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The poster shows six people, but it names only four above the title. If you look here, you can see the remaining two names mentioned in the billing block. For the synopsis, we do need to state who per MOS:QUOTE. As for information being repeated, see MOS:LEAD. It states, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points... The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead." Like I said, this summary will be more beneficial when the article body gets longer with more information about the film. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The poster shows six faces but only four people since Hart and Ealy are shown twice. And why state the website of origin for a synopsis and still use a reference? Sound repetitive to me. Like state production notes in the intro when there's a "Production" section in the article stating the same thing. Article needs to be cleaned up to look presentable, I tried. Oh well...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HENDAWG229 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Whoops, you're right about the poster actually only having four people. I assumed the six names in the billing block were connected to six faces. So I guess it could be the four names above the title or all six names from the billing block. It would depend on how prominent McDonald and Patton are in their roles. As for quoting the synopsis, it is just a matter of stating in prose who is saying it. Is the director saying it? A spokesperson? We cannot have a quoted statement exist in an article with no attribution. As for the repeated information, the lead section is stating key highlights from the production section. The line, "The remake began development under Screen Gems in January 2011, and the director and the ensemble cast were hired in mid-2012," is a 21-word summary of the same information (conveyed in 92 words) in the production section. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

References to use
References to use. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * From the Set of Steve Pink's About Last Night at ComingSoon.net
 * Director Steve Pink Talks ABOUT LAST NIGHT, What Attracted Him to the Project, Why the Movie Was Due for a New Adaptation, and More at Collider.com
 * Regina Hall Talks ABOUT LAST NIGHT, What Attracted Her to the Project, Playing off of Kevin Hart, Her Version of the Character, and Pros/Cons of Remakes at Collider.com
 * Kevin Hart Talks ABOUT LAST NIGHT, Edging out Other Romantic Comedies, Pushing the Envelope, Balancing Comedy and Drama, and Improvising on Set at Collider.com
 * Michael Ealy Talks ABOUT LAST NIGHT, His Most Compelling Scene, Working with Kevin Hart and Shooting on Location in Downtown Los Angeles at Collider.com
 * Michael Ealy Talks All ‘About Last Night’ at Ebony.com
 * ‘About Last Night’ Cast Talk Working Together, Chemistry And Possible Sequel at Atlanta Black Star
 * Let’s Talk ‘About Last Night’ Baby at Los Angeles Sentinel
 * Michael Ealy: ‘I had to lose 25 pounds for ‘About Last Night’ role’ at The Grio
 * Kevin Hart of 'About Last Night' a man on the move at San Francisco Chronicle
 * Columbia Records Releases ABOUT LAST NIGHT Soundtrack Digitally Today at Broadway World
 * Her Source Exclusive: Regina Hall talks ‘About Last Night’ & Working With Kevin Hart at The Source
 * Michael Ealy and Joy Bryant on why scripts shouldn't be written 'black' or 'white' at HitFix
 * Leslye Headland on Reimagining 'About Last Night' for a Black Cast (Guest Column) at The Hollywood Reporter
 * Michael Ealy: Kevin Hart’s Wingman in ‘About Last Night,’ Rising Leading Man at Wall Street Journal
 * Stars of About Last Night Offer Relationship Advice at The Root
 * Kevin Hart is frank about the adult version of ‘About Last Night’ at Los Angeles Daily News
 * Kevin Hart Spearheads Raunchy Remake of Romantic Romp at Los Angeles Sentinel
 * Let’s Talk ‘About Last Night’ Baby at Los Angeles Sentinel

Lead section
Regarding the lead section, here is a breakdown of my issues with the rewrite: Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It violates WP:LEAD in putting the no-name director and no-name writer in the first sentence because we are supposed to identify the most noteworthy element upfront. That element are the starring actors. It is false to claim that the director and writer must always be in the first sentence. That can be done with the likes of Christopher Nolan, Aaron Sorkin, etc. In this case, the attention on this film was not because of Pink and Headland, so they should be relegated to after the starring actors.
 * While less important, I see little reason to name-drop the producers as well. They are barely mentioned in the article body.
 * Per MOS:PARA, having just one sentence (about the production) is problematic. And why remove mention that the setting is now in Los Angeles when it was in Chicago before? That was a detail highlighted in reliable sources.
 * Regarding critical reception, there is no source for "criticism aimed at its diversion from the source material". Even if some individual critics said that, we cannot WP:SYNTHesize that into an aggregate statement. That is why the previous wording is based on what exists in the article body.
 * Another WP:SYNTH issue is explicitly comparing the film's production budget to how much it grossed. The numbers are not directly comparable. There is prints and advertising (P&A) spent by the studio, and the studio does not pocket all of the revenue either. So the two numbers should be made distinct.
 * Why would you remove the nowrap template too? It is useful to link the month and the day of the month.
 * Also, it is unnecessary to remove spaces from the citations. It makes no difference in how citations look, and it is detrimental in combiningtextwithnosenseofwheresomethingstartsorends.