Talk:Bad Day at Black Rock

Unmarked spoilers

KEEP SPOILERS UNDER A SPOILER WARNING. In the five years since this article's creation, and through dozens of edits, it has displayed a MAJOR reveal in the first sentence of the initial short description, potentially spoiling the film for thousands upon thousands of people -- including myself!

Speaking in the name of everyone whose naïveté and/or apparently over-optimistic expectations of Wikipedia's "dedicated" "editors" (and especially those of the WikiProject Films project) ruined this beautiful film, I say: Thanks a lot, assholes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.197.11.30 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 8 January 2007.

Sorry, this ship has long sailed! That is, spoilers are in, I never took part in the debate, nor did I want to. Luigibob (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

One arm or paralyzed arm

I listen to the DVD commentary and the person stated he had a paralyzed arm.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.121.29 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 12 July 2008‎ (UTC)

Good point. I was under the impression he was not amputated. That is not clear in the film. I think that needs to be dealt with in the plot summary. Stetsonharry (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hondo or Honda?

The article currently says this was adapted from the short story "Bad Day at Hondo" by Howard Breslin and gives IMDb as a source. I only see that as a working title there, while other sources [1] [2] give the short story title as "Bad Time at Honda". Can anyone confirm one way or the other?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The general opinion seems to be "Hondo". AMCKen (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to "Honda". The definitive answer would be to get a copy of The American Magazine. - Best O Fortuna (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC) >>> Which can be seen here.

Jeep headlight

Notice that in the final shootout, one headlight of the Jeep smokes for several seconds as the lens is shot out but leaving the burning filament intact. AMCKen (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Statistics

Under Critical response, is it statistically significant that 25 reviews are 96% positive? I say that final paragraph should be removed until a larger sampling of public opinion is available. BrianWilloughby (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia entries are not scholarly papers. Besides, there are plenty of published papers in reputable journals that used smaller samples than 25. The percent positive may change with a bigger sample size, but there's no need to remove it just because it doesn't meet peer-review specs. After all, few peers meet peer-review specs. BubbleDine (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the question reflects a misunderstanding. As I understand it, the "Rotten Tomatoes" website collects all of the published reviews (written by professional critics) thay can get their hands on. As such, there is no "sampling" involved. And if there is no sampling, no questions of "statistical significance" arise. Nandt1 (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bad Day at Black Rock. 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/20110822150048/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/3718/year/1955.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/3718/year/1955.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bad Day at Black Rock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Daß Wölf (talk · contribs) 02:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'll begin the review later today. Daß Wölf 02:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Daß Wölf. Thank you for taking this on. Please let me know if I can help in any way. All the best. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 09:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: You're welcome and thank you for contributing a GAN-worthy article. The first round of the review is below. Daß Wölf 23:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, Daß Wölf. This is a very thorough review. I'll make a start and hopefully have something for you in two or three days. All the best for now. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 09:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I've made a number of changes noted below. Out of time now, but hoping to do more tomorrow. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 13:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

First round

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lead

• Per WP:LEAD, the lead should generally not contain information that isn't in the body. Do RS comment on the Oscar-winning cast? That would be a nice mention under the list in the Cast section. Agreed. Moved the award info to the cast section and sourced each one.
• The second Kim Newman reference in the lead is unnecessary, as it's a summary of the Plot section, which doesn't need citations. Agreed. Added the reference to a sentence in the narrative.
• Similarly, the citations in the lead's 2nd para shouldn't be there. In case the same claims are made in the body, the citations can be moved there. If not, then the text should be moved/copied to the body, since the lead shouldn't substantially introduce information that isn't in the body. Agreed. Moved the whole lot into the narrative and left a summary in the lead.

Broadness and NPOV

• This might take some effort to rectify -- the article is a little meagre for a moderately influential 1950s Hollywood film. Looking at the WP:MOSFILM structure for inspiration, I wouldn't be surprised if there's nothing else of substance to be said about the film's marketing or release, but I would definitely expect that at least some sentences can be written the themes. I see some discussion in e.g. the the Streamas paper listed in Bibliography&[3] or the Densho Encyclopedia entry under External links. Themes section included. Could you look at this, please, and see if if you think more content is needed?
• Similarly, I see you've removed a section about the film's novelisation. The blurb and cover art description are obviously OR and unnecessarily detail, but the a published novelisation should definitely be mention article (quick search for pen name yields an NYT article mentioning the novel; it's also mentioned in the Streamas paper). Ditto for any soundtracks, TV pilots etc. you might've come across. Mentioned the novel with those two references. Not seen anything about other representations, though.

Images

• Images are listed as PD and on the Commons, so that aspect seems fine. I've checked the copyright renewal lists mentioned on the image pages and it seems copyright has indeed lapsed. Thanks.

Plot

• Some of the paragraphs in the Plot section are pretty short and could be merged or rearranged. Done. It's now five paragraphs.
• "Macreedy tells Smith that he knows Smith has killed Komoko and involved others." This sounds a little vague. Perhaps "killed Komoko with the help of others"? Done.
• "In the hotel lobby, Hastings arrives..." -- suggest "Hastings arrives in the hotel lobby and...". Does this immediately follow the fight in the previous para? Amended.
• "When Horn tries" -- if it's just a few words, it would be more natural to describe what Horn does here, e.g. "Horn stands up, but..." Amended.

Sources

• Streamas (2003) is listed under Bibliography but not referenced in citations. Are there any footnotes missing? Now referenced. I've included items by Streamas in the Themes and Production section.
• The Bosley Crowther quote is excessive. The text is not necessarily unduly long but at this length it needs to be paraphrased. Agreed. I reduced it to his salient point about the direction.
• Spot check -- I can't find some of the claims in the 3rd para of Production in the source cited at the end of the para: replaced opening sequence, $9 as price of ticket. Removed all. I think this was a completely unreliable source. It kept on about the film being an Oscar winner when it didn't win any.
  Daß Wölf 23:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes. I've placed the article on hold for now pending the unresolved comments (just ignore the "up to 7 days" part). Please ping me when you're done and/or reply here. Daß Wölf 03:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

That's fine, Daß Wölf. I've addressed the remaining concerns but I'm not sure how much coverage you would prefer in the new Themes section. Could you please take a look and let me know. Thanks again and all the best. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 19:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I think there could probably be more, but this satisfies the WP:WIAGA broadness criterion so I'm going to ✓ Pass the article. All the best to you too, and thanks for the prompt responses and the good work you've put in on the article! Daß Wölf 04:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Daß Wölf. Your review was very thorough and I'm glad we have been able to work together to improve the article. Best wishes. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 06:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)