Talk:Life! Camera Action...

Puffery!
This article seems bogged down by promotional language and puffery:
 * "Life! Camera Action... received universal acclaim and its message widely praised."
 * "The film received universal acclaim and wide audience appreciation earning numerous international awards and accolades in various categories from around the world."
 * "It became the only feature film to date by an Indian filmmaker that is shot by a two member crew with worldwide acclaim." (Edit: I have removed the "with worldwide acclaim.)
 * "...the film went on to receive numerous accolades around the world"
 * "The film has received various accolades"
 * "Thomas Baker of the Accolade Film Awards in California praised..."

This is standard WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK. "Universal" acclaim implies unanimity, which will never be achieved. I'll point out that for all the awards it won, there were numerous that it was nominated for, but didn't win. The numerous mentions to the acclaim and praise is excessive. Did anyone even try to find a negative review? Audience appreciation is generally irrelevant so I'm not sure why we care about that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have cleaned up the puffery and promotional language. Does it look ok now? Please advise. Aterrence (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm still not clear where the neutral point of view is being presented. Where are the negative reviews to balance out all of the film festival gushing? Citizen Kane, a Western film that routinely makes various "best films of all time" lists, like at AFI's 100 Greatest American Films of All Time or at Rotten Tomatoes, where it has a 100% rating, still has negative criticism presented at Citizen Kane to balance out the gush. Ryder212 has made a few reverts making baseless proclamations like "We cannot change the facts or challenge sources." Well, we cannot change the facts, but we can question their representation in a project that demands neutrality, and we can absolutely challenge sources, so I'm not even sure what he means. Saying "the film has received critical acclaim" is accurate, but can "the film has also received negative acclaim" also be accurate?   do you care to comment? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think in almost all cases, the phrase "critical acclaim" (and, even worse, "universal acclaim") is puffery and a red flag. There are times when it's appropriate, such as when it's in a quotation, but generally I think it should be avoided.  Not every verifiable fact has to end up in a Wikipedia article; contested facts, if indiscriminate or presented in too promotional a manner, can be excluded through consensus.  Nobody is saying that the film can not be described as having had a positive reception if reliable sources specifically say so.  But to use phrases like "critical acclaim" is too promotional – in my opinion, at least. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with that. I'm not even a fan of summarizing general critical response (the film received generally positive reviews), as I think these things are better left to critical response aggregators like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes to say in their own language. And even then, care should be exercised to avoid blanket statements, particularly when Metacritic and RT don't always see eye-to-eye. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Life! Camera Action.... Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130408054859/http://goldendoorfilmfestival.org/archives/4372 to http://goldendoorfilmfestival.org/archives/4372
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206234335/http://www.calfilmawards.com/Awards/2011_winners/2011_grand_winners.aspx to http://www.calfilmawards.com/Awards/2011_winners/2011_grand_winners.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121221051618/http://www.canadafilmfestival.com/Festival/PastWinners/2012/tabid/472/Default.aspx to http://www.canadafilmfestival.com/Festival/PastWinners/2012/tabid/472/Default.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130408054859/http://goldendoorfilmfestival.org/archives/4372 to http://goldendoorfilmfestival.org/archives/4372
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131216140144/http://nyfa.tumblr.com/post/2062374791/alum-makes-first-feature to http://nyfa.tumblr.com/post/2062374791/alum-makes-first-feature

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Life! Camera Action.... Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120806091542/http://exclusivenews.co.in/life-camera-action-wins-another-top-three-awards/ to http://exclusivenews.co.in/life-camera-action-wins-another-top-three-awards/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)