Talk:American Fiction (film)

Lead section
I'm not sure why the clear policies of WP:LEAD needs further explanation. The guidelines say the lead section should summarize not supplant the article body. Details should be in the article body first. Not all details are WP:DUE additional extra emphasis in the lead section.

On the other matter of white spaces, while I understand that some editors do not like white space there is no good reason to format lists inconsistently within the same article and even the same Infobox. If you object to whitespaces it would be more consistent to remove them from all lists in the Infobox. (A key benefit of wiki markup is that is more easily human readable than other markup such as XML, it seems a misunderstanding of the history of wiki to not want clearer markup with tidy spacing. Also any performance benefit of a little less whitespace is not worth worrying about WP:DWAP.) -- 109.76.128.3 (talk) 04:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Information in lead
IP editor: Wikipedia guidelines state that the introductory section of an article (known as the lead) should summarize the content of the article. The paragraph that you have added appears to be original research that does not summarize what is in the article. There is no discussion of "Black familial tropes, artistry versus commerciality, identity in the face of failure, and artistic integrity" in the article body. voorts (talk/contributions) 07:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It’s 100% original research and has been reverted. If they keep adding their opinions and don’t discuss here, then the article can be protected.  Mike   Allen   09:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I undid your reversion because in the interim, several critical reviews were added and copy edited by a new editor. voorts (talk/contributions) 10:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Read the section again of what the IP wrote.  Mike  Allen   10:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This “new editor” is writing the same original research. Their only edits are on this page, along with the IP. This is very problematic.  Mike   Allen   10:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I missed this section that was added by the new editor: The film has consistently been lauded for its ability to interject humor while addressing nuanced, dramatic themes. Audiences saw this as a refreshing take on African American stories because Black narratives, especially dramas, were often treated with a heavy gravitas, coupled with deep anguish and trauma.
 * Now I see your concerns. voorts (talk/contributions) 10:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think most of the material should be restored, the OR can be deleted, and the NPOV section can be properly tagged and @Winterblanket333 should have the opportunity to review the neutral point of view policy and make changes accordingly. voorts (talk/contributions) 10:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The actual reviews have been. But not the synthesized summary above it.  Mike  Allen   10:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. @Winterblanket333: I encourage you to reply here so that we can work together to make the article better. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @MikeAllen: RE your edit summary: Did you not read the whole section on Wright? WP:PUFFERY and WP:NPOV I did, which is why I tagged the section with over-quotation. And, after I added that tag, a new editor, @Winterblanket333, started making significant cuts and toning down the language. I would be fine with tagging the section with NPOV and puffery tags as well, but I don't think that content containing cites to several reliable sources should be removed before editors have an opportunity to fix it. voorts (talk/contributions) 10:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Images in Critical response section
It feels redundant to have the same pictures of Wright and Brown repeated in the Critical response section (they are already pictured in the cast section). I think it would be best to just remove those images from the Critical response section. -- 109.76.203.128 (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I think it is too, thus it has been .  Mike  Allen   15:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Wanted to float the idea today before doing it tomorrow. -- 109.76.203.128 (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Plot section identical to text in IMDB plot synopsis
I have no idea which came first, but, if it is the IMDB section, I feel that the source should at least be acknowledged here. 2601:646:9601:11A0:9D6B:A350:ABDD:59DC (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The summary was added by on January 4, 2024 and differs slightly from the IMDb version.  Mike   Allen   19:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The wikipedia synopsis came first and was original writing by me. You can check the dates. Whoever edited the IMDB copy and pasted from here. Scdsco (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)