| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cult film article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Cult film has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Lede
editThe lede is waaaaaaay too long. WP:LEDE: A lede is supposed to be a summary of the article, not an essay in itself. - Altenmann >talk 04:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, it's perfectly fine. That page says it should be "four well-composed paragraphs", which this is. The article passed a GA with that lead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Surely the paragraphs themselves could be pared down? I know this is an article of which you are proud, but don’t allow this pride to potentially cloud your judgement in this respect. Just my two cents Editmakerer (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- The length is fine. MOS:LEAD says, "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs..." For some topics, four paragraphs would be a lot, but considering that this is a type of film that has a long history, it's definitely suitable, like with any film genre article or article about the history of film in some country. Furthermore, MOS:LEAD says, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic," and considering the article's length (about 9,200 words), fitting an overview into four paragraphs involves a lot of summarizing. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Surely the paragraphs themselves could be pared down? I know this is an article of which you are proud, but don’t allow this pride to potentially cloud your judgement in this respect. Just my two cents Editmakerer (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Wordiness
editThis article is very wordy imo, should be split a bit up. Habat1165 (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'll prune it a bit eventually. I was probably a bit too thorough, but it's a broad topic, and – at the time of it was rewritten – it was still policy compliant. Things could have changed in the past 10 years. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- WP:SIZERULE says when it's over 15K words, it should be divided or trimmed. Looks like it is around 9.7K words. So it could be trimmed to somewhere between 6K-8K words. And/or another possibility is to just split out the "Types" section, which is about 2.3K words, and leave behind a summary section. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, splitting out the "types of cult films" section was something I had considered. It seems like it could potentially stand on its own. If someone did split the article, that's what I'd recommend they spin out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- WP:SIZERULE says when it's over 15K words, it should be divided or trimmed. Looks like it is around 9.7K words. So it could be trimmed to somewhere between 6K-8K words. And/or another possibility is to just split out the "Types" section, which is about 2.3K words, and leave behind a summary section. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)