This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Crawl (2019 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sometimes Wikipedia editors make claims that aren't in this sources (like taking the box office and the bad reviews and claiming one was "despite" the other). So I understand caution when editors make claims about unrelated events being "conversely" or "despite" something.
However in this case the film was not screened for criticsAND the critics expressed surprise that it was quite good and wondered why it wasn't screened for critics, and the lead actress also expressed her own surprise as to why it wasn't screened for critics. -- 109.78.219.163 (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
The Box Office section notes that the film was not screened for critics. This doesn't seem like the best place for information about critics and their responses but it's better than not including it at all. -- 109.76.158.242 (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Tarantino said it might be his favorite film of the year[1] but the year isn't over yet, so maybe I'll add this to the article later with more sources if Tarantino mentions it again. -- 109.78.237.56 (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hello Some Dude from North Carolina, I'll be taking up the review for this nomination and will present it to you shortly. I hope you will find my feedback to be useful. Tayi ArajakateTalk 18:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Some Dude From North Carolina, I have completed the review and it seems to meet the good article criteria on nomination. Good work, I could not locate any issues with it except the one I have mentioned in the comments below. I'm not too concerned about it so I'll promote it to a good article but please do consider it. Tayi ArajakateTalk 14:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Earwig's copyvio detector brings up a fairly high percentage. Most of this is due to quotes and some false positives. In particular, this seems to be because of a Pepper's quote in the casting section, which I would suggest trimming down a bit and instead summarising what he says. There are some copied phrases as well which I would recommend rephrasing; e.g "months of endurance training", "open his eyes underwater for long periods of time".
.svg){kind=small}
Neutral