This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon articles
Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've had to revert quite a bit of content that was recently added to the article, so I'm leaving the following note to clarify why:
Firstly, the job of a Wikipedia article is to be neutral and objective, not to read like it's part of the film's marketing. We could potentially add a "reception" section that provides short quotes of the things said about the film by specific film critics, so long as those are properly sourced, but it is not our job to simply call the film "a tour de force of filmmaking" in our own editorial voice without attributing that assertion to a specific film critic.
Secondly, when it comes to the awards table, we are only interested in awards that are (a) awards, and (b) sourceable to media reportage that treats said awards as news. For example, the fact of having been submitted to the Academy Awards for consideration is not, in and of itself, an award — if it actually gets an Academy Award nomination when those come out next week, then that will obviously get added to the awards table, but simply being on the eligible list is not, in and of itself, an "award". And similarly, making the Top Ten in Hot Docs audience voting is not in and of itself an award either: if the film didn't actually win the Rogers, then "made the Top Ten in the preliminary voting" is not a noteworthy distinction. We're also not interested in awards that you have to reference to non-independent sourcing like a film festival's own self-published PR, or to unreliable sourcing like IMDb — we're only interested in awards that media consider important and notable enough to report the award announcement as news.
Thirdly, we do not do "exhibitions" sections that exhaustively list every individual screening the film ever had — we care about the premiere, obviously, but after that we only care about screenings that represent something unique or special: Hot Docs since that was the Canadian premiere of a Canadian film that had its overall premiere outside of Canada (and because it did get a jury citation that counts as a noteworthy award), and film festivals where it won awards that meet the criteria for point 2 above. It's simply not our job to track or list any other screenings that don't meet one of those special tests, especially not if they're unsourced.
