Talk:Crazy Rich Asians (film)

Feedback

Sailorstarlight, I saw that you created this article. Thanks for adding the details! Can you add a film infobox to the article too? You can copy the code from {{Infobox film}}. Also, you need to rewrite the "Plot" section in your own words because passing off the synopsis as Wikipedia's own is plagiarism. I can provide other feedback as needed. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

We need to expand the article to have more general production details because right now, the "Ethnic casting" section is looking like a coatrack. If we have other details and summarize the casting debate more succinctly, it would be better balanced overall. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

ABC: American-born Chinese

The term American-born Chinese is considered by some as an ethnic slur. Please have a look at American-born_Chinese. It is true that I am one of that article's editors. However, the article's inclusion into the Wikipedia category of Ethnic Slurs far predates my editing. I was hoping that someone could change American-born Chinese to "American of Chinese descent." Instead of saying "American-born Chinese economics professor" which sounds simply absurd, since it seems to imply that Constance Wu is a "Chinese economics professor" who just happens to be "American-born," I suggest changing the designation to "American economics professor of Chinese descent," or "American economics professor of Chinese ancestry."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.198.20.176 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

"Majority Asian" casting AND contemporary story

A Los Angeles Times article calls Crazy Rich Asians "[the] first contemporary English-language Hollywood film with an all-Asian cast since The Joy Luck Club 25 years ago." ([1]) Another Times article characterizes it as "the first American studio film to center on an Asian American story told by Asian filmmakers with an all-Asian cast in 25 years, since Wayne Wang directed the 1993 adaptation of Amy Tan's The Joy Luck Club to critical acclaim." ([2]) An article in Slate calls it "the first studio film centered on the Asian American experience since Wang’s drama [The Joy Luck Club]." ([3]) According to the New York Times, "[the] last time a major Hollywood film set in the present day showcased a majority Asian cast was a whopping 25 years ago, with The Joy Luck Club in 1993" ([4]) and is "the first Hollywood film with an all-Asian cast and a contemporary story since The Joy Luck Club in 1993". ([5])

It should be clear there are two criteria being cited:

1. The cast is all (or majority) Asian.
2. The story is set contemporaneously.

This is why Memoirs of a Geisha (period piece), Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (fantasy), Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle (not majority Asian cast, despite the two headliners) are not being cited in articles as the last time Hollywood did a movie like this, while Joy Luck Club is. The Washington Post has published a nice timeline of Asian-American appearances in film ([6]), but there are specific reasons to exclude every film listed based on the two criteria. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I am confused about the "All Asian casting" claim.. While certainly the majority of the characters in the film are Asian, and all main characters, the beginning of the movie features actors who are not, such as Peter Carroll (Lord Calthorpe) and Daniel Jenkins (Reginald Ormsby). -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Related films

1961's Flower Drum Song (film) was the first film of this type and 1993's The Joy Luck Club (film) was the second, making 2018's Crazy Rich Asians, only the third major Hollywood feature to have a majority Asian cast in a contemporary Asian-American story. 3 films in 57 years. -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

If the pattern holds up, the next one should appear in 20 years (1961-1993 = 1/3 century; 1993-2018 = 1/4 century; 2018-2038 = 1/5 century) -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

It's been about a century (1/2 century before Flower Drum Song) since the 1917 The Curse of Quon Gwon was made as the first Asian-American made film; which also had such a cast, which also told a contemporary story. -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the associated article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

It is related to the improvement of the article. The article currently mentions only "Joy Luck Club" as a comparable film. However, as shown by the references here, there's also "Flower Drum Song". And the article already discusses the paucity of films of similar topic matter from Hollywood, which using material from the references here, can be expanded. Thus it is on-topic. We can show this film is only the third film of such a type, and show the first was 60 years ago. We can show the origin of Asian American cinema with "The Curse of Quon Gwon" as additional historical context, since that is considered the first Asian American film

The relevant historical and cultural context and similar situations from the two earlier films can be used in the cultural impact section, to show the outcome of the two earlier waves of critically acclaimed popular films of contemporary Asian-American portryals, and the parallels that the critics in the sources draw out for this film here. -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Requested move 2 September 2018

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Crazy Rich Asians → Crazy Rich Asians (novel)
• Crazy Rich Asians (film) → Crazy Rich Asians

– I think that the film and novel should switch places, as the film has the more historically notable position, with it representing an epochal film, while Asians do keep writing novels that keep getting published in English, it isn't thus in major Hollywood films. -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think you are misunderstanding what the meaning of "historically" means. A film that was just released does not have history yet. --Gonnym (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose to avoid WP:RECENTISM, but can be revisited in a few months — bieχχ (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Opposed: I think the book is the primary topic here. The film IS a film, hence why the article is titled Crazy Rich Asians (film). Changing it to something else would be backwards and illogical. Keep as is! Armegon (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • You could say the same thing for moving the novel to "(novel)" to ensure that it shows up as a novel, since the novel is a novel. -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:RECENTISM._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • RECENTISM doesn't change the fact that this film is an epochal film, and that isn't something that changes with age. The first film in 25 years is the basis of primacy, not the fact that it is recent. -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - The movie just came out, so it makes sense that its page is be getting more traffic for now. In a few months, if the film maintains more relevancy than the book, then this can be addressed again. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 15:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • That isn't the reasoning used for the move. There is no popularity argument used to support this move request, rather it is the historical nature of the film, with its casting, its story, and the lack of such films in the last 25 years. If you walk into a book store, you can find many novels similar to this novel (Asian American stories by Asian Americans), but if you go to the cinema, you'll have no such luck.-- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Going to keep with my oppose. It's still too recent, and the novel was wildly successful in terms of sales to completely discount it in comparison of the film. The film just came out, let it establish more of a legacy before the switch. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 19:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - The film is a derivative work of the novel. The novel should retain the primary namespace. Goyston talk, contribs 00:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Derivation doesn't make something not the primary topic, nor does it make the original work the primary topic. For instance, The Joy Luck Club is not the book. The Bourne Identity is not the book. M*A*S*H is not the book. Etc. Being first does not automatically make it the primary topic. -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose would support moving Crazy Rich Asians to Crazy Rich Asians (novel) but keep Crazy Rich Asians (film) because now that there's is a film neither is really primary עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose because the film is too recent, and the novel itself is a bestseller with reviews from major outlets. Unless a film's source material is relatively obscure (Road to Perdition is one such example), it is usually the standard approach to have the source material be the primary topic and for adaptations to be secondary topics. When the source material has some claim to fame, readers should not be surprised to land on the novel's article first. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

  To follow up, it does not appear that Kwan's novel was significant enough to be written about beyond contemporary reviews. Google Scholar shows that it has only been cited 10 times (compared to The Joy Luck Club which has been cited 1,206 times), and WorldCat.org does not show any nonfiction works that have written about Kwan's novel (and there are numerous results for the novel The Joy Luck Club). I would expect the film to be written about more than the novel to warrant switching the primary and secondary topic positions (like what happened with Fight Club), but at this point, it is too soon to make that assessment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:RECENTISM. Check back in 1–2 years – it's quite possible that this move will be justified then. But we need to see the page view trends first... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is there an extra Reviews section?

Why is there an extra Reviews subsection under the External links section? From what I understand of WP:EL and WP:MOSFILM shouldn't these all be moved in the Reception/Critical response section? -- 37.110.218.43 (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You're right. I've removed that subsection per WP:ELMAYBE #1. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken. :P

More rules than anyone can possibly remember.

Here's the specific edit that removed the extra reviews in case anyone wants to reuse any of the reviews or include them in the Critical response section instead. -- 37.110.218.43 (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Good idea to share the diff! Thanks. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Controversy

I don't appreciate my WP:GOODFAITH copyedits being reverted because people are arguing over which section the controversy should be filed under.

I for one think it is entirely appropriate to have a separate Controversy section after critical response (and I'm not convinced there is good reason to file it as a sub-subsection of Production under casting) but I'm not going to get in an edit war about it. People please figure out a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and get out of the way of people who are trying to improve the article. -- 37.110.218.43 (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You currently have no consensus for making your repeat reverts of this material without first establishing consensus for your edit on this Talk page. You might wish to consider starting a regular user account since you appear to be editing from an account with a highly volatile edit history including multiple blocks. Establish consensus on the talk page prior to any further edits on the article. All casting discussion must be kept in the casting section. The material uses sources written prior to the release of the film and belongs with the production discussion of the film. FutureForecasts (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I made one revert, to restore the article to the way it was earlier today, and to show that I tend to agree with the other editor. I don't intend to make another revert. You should have shown some good faith by restoring at least part of the edits you trampled over in your mass revert.

Wikipedia is the open encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's a shared IP but so what. It isn't like anyone can know if FutureForecasts is your real name or if you have any other accounts either, but you brought it up and it is beside the point.

You failed to explain why you think the section needs to be where you say it "must" go. It is unclear if there is any consensus yet either way, and you should make it clear.

So you say the section must be under Production because it contains information from before the film was released. Thank for making your reasoning clear but I don't accept your assertion or the premise of your argument. It is largely irrelevant when the controversy happened and the controversy is ongoing, plenty of opinions came out after the film was released. Also the article works better structurally when given a separate section for Controversy. It is a controversy about casting, but it is not about the behind the scenes details of Production and the film making process, so it is illogical to have it as a subsection of Production and it works better as a separate section.

I hope at least a few people will comment and say where they think the best place for the information is, and that there is at least a real WP:LOCALCONSENSUS about where it goes and not just one person assertion things must be done their way. I'm more than happy to follow the consensus.

Also if you're going to move the section then just move it but don't trample over other peoples edits next time. -- 37.110.218.43 (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

It shows a lack of good faith to claim a single revert is edit warring when you so rudely trampled over other peoples edits and didn't make any effort to keep even a tiny part of those edits. Please make any comments you have on this article talk page only. -- 37.110.218.43 (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

No trampling here of any kind. The citations you are talking about for the material regarding casting are in the vast majority from prior to the release of the film. Often they are from several months before the release of the film. That means that it is in the production phase of the film. Casting information and citations from prior to the release of the film go into the casting section. FutureForecasts (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? The IP made a number of constructive copyedits, which you undid without any relevant or valid rationale, and then you had the ill-considered temerity to leave a warning on their talkpage about edit warring. If you wanted to prompt a conversation about the move of the casting information, per BRD you could have reverted that edit and then asked for conversation on the talkpage. Instead, you inappropriately reverted an entire series of the user's edits, which absolutely is "trampling" over their contributions. Edit collaboratively, because those reversions so far smack of ownership, and I'd say you merit a warning of your own. Grandpallama (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

My edit already stated that the IP can bring in the constructive copyedits with the full rationale given on this diff [7]. The issue here is that casting information from before the film release goes into the casting section. The copyedits themselves look fine, though the revert by the IP editor to take the material out of the casting section was not consistent with the film's production schedule and the dates of the casting citations being used in the edit. FutureForecasts (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

My edit already stated that the IP can bring in the constructive copyedits Then why did you undo them in the first place? And if you were acting in good faith to encourage the copyedits, why was your immediate next step to request a renewal of page protection in order to keep IPs from editing?[8] Your other reversions were wrong, and I have restored the IP's copyedits. If you have specific objections to them, then lay those out, but don't do a blanket reversion like that again. Grandpallama (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You appear to be doing exactly what I offered that the IP editor could do. That is not what the IP editor was doing. You should normally wait for agreement on Talk prior to editing the main article. FutureForecasts (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You should normally wait for agreement on Talk prior to editing the main article. That's not how Wikipedia works. No, prior consensus on a talkpage is not required to edit an article, unless the edit is disputed. The edit was disputed and the IP is discussing the Controversy section, but they do not need to gain prior approval for it or for the copyediting, nor should the copyedits have been undone at all. Grandpallama (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Consensus on Talk is how it works. If you are taking responsibility for some of the IP editor's isolated edits that's fine, and I have stated its fine above 2-3 times now. FutureForecasts (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

But not prior consensus. If you can, provide some diffs (as the IP originally requested) that the discussion about this information being kept in the casting section has occurred and your preferred version has been accepted as consensus. And if that doesn't exist, then you need to present a rationale for your preferred version. Otherwise, this is just a disagreement between two editors, and that previously assumed consensus may no longer exist. I don't see any clearly laid-out argumentation anywhere on this talkpage as to why your preferred version is the better one, or that any consensus of it has been established. It may well merit more support than a controversy section, but two people have now challenged it, which suggests consensus may actually not be on your side. On what basis are you arguing that Casting information and citations from prior to the release of the film go into the casting section? Solely on chronology? Because I think insisting that the article must be organized chronologically rather than by topic requires more elaboration. Grandpallama (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that, I do appreciate it Grandpallama. It is pity you had to do it at all, or that he expected anyone to resubmit edits he trampled over. It is unfortunate but not surprising that FutureForecasts still thinks what he did was okay, that it ias okay to revert other peoples edits without cause or that it was reasonable to tell people to go and redo their own edits. (using words like "must" is never a good way to interact with others, especially when most of the rules in wikipedia are only things we "should" try to do. "procedural revert" is not a meaningful edit summary either.

It happens all too often, editors forget even the simple rules and it is fundamentally too easy to delete or revert and not enough effort is made to Undo others' edits with care but despite all the reverts and deletes Wikipedia does seem to eventually improve, but it shouldn't be this hard and to see the same problems over and over I can't help thinking the system itself is deeply flawed and it is all very discouraging. -- 37.110.218.43 (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Erik: @SummerPhDv2.0:Pinging a couple of editors whom I see recently contributed to this page and who are highly experienced in editing film articles to get their opinions. If having this information in the casting section, rather than a controversy section, makes a lot more sense, then let's actually establish some consensus on that. But if that doesn't actually have consensus, let's establish that, too, so that the edit warring can stop and people can be directed to an actual consensus about it. Grandpallama (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Personally, until the "I-fixed-this; You-destroyed-it" boils off, I have no intention of wading into this. If anyone cares to summarize the question without asserting they are correct and the other person is the problem, I'd be willing to read it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think it boils down to "Should the casting controversies currently listed as subsets of the casting section be in a separate controversy section, or not?" It looks like FutureForecasts thinks they should stay in the casting section based on an argument (I think) that because the controversies arose during the casting, they should be part of the casting subsection. A couple of different IPs have restored a "controversies" section, which appears to have existed at an earlier point in the page's history, as the proper place to keep this information. I'm not sure I have a strong feeling either way beyond feeling that a claimed consensus doesn't actually exist, and I'm not sure if there are perhaps previously established approaches that should be used here for consistency across Wikipedia. Grandpallama (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I would say it is more appropriate to have the content be in a separate section. If it is under the "Production" section, then that is a very big divergence from telling how the film was made. It's a distinct sub-topic, in my opinion. Usually such commentary-type sections come toward the end because they are "secondary" to the staple sections of most film articles (production and release). Furthermore, I'd probably encourage a better section heading than just "Controversy", which is banal and unclear. Skimming recent headlines, I am seeing a lot of different commentary that could all go under an Asian casting commentary kind of section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a section heading that combined/incorporated the language of those two subsections, then? Grandpallama (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it could be as simple as "Casting commentary" with the two subsections (and any related future subsection) under it. For an example, see Edge of Tomorrow#Social commentary. While the subsections are related to casting and filmmaking respectively, the commentary is distinct enough to have its own space. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Further comment. When I first looked at this, the citations were in the majority dated to the production time frame of the film, therefor the production section seems the correct place. Also, the material in the section is mostly oriented towards discussing the mixed ethnic background of the male lead actor, to the extent that nearly all the citations are about him as the center of the extended discussion. If that's true then it might make sense to condense the cited discussion about the production phase selection of the male lead actor, and pulling a shortened version of this information into the existing casting section. FutureForecasts (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, you can use an anchor link (see WP:ANCHOR) to bring up a sub-topic in passing so readers can jump to a more relevant spot to read more. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

While I accept that the "Controversy" subheading is not the most descriptive, it is generic and widely used and it feels like it is keeping with WP:NPOV. "Commentary" (or any variation on that) as a section heading seems more bland and too soft. If you think deeper the topic of the section is ultimately Racism (one source calls it "Colourism"), several slightly different types of racism from different directions and for the most part politely expressed but still essentially racism. As a section heading though "Racism" seems too strong, so I'd fall back to "Controversy".

As I said earlier I think a separate section is better, and it makes more sense for Production to be about the Production and film making process. It even looks structurally wrong to have such a deeply nested sub-subsection, but from the discussion so far FutureForecasts seems to be the only person with a strong opinion, most other opinions seem neutral to me. -- 11:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I would say "Controversy" is an overblown term to use that seems to exaggerate the matter, in general use. This post-release article doesn't use any variation of the word. I think there could be more descriptive and spot-on terms used for the section headings. "Casting critiques"? It's just that in my experience, "Controversy" is a horribly default way on Wikipedia to bucket any even mild criticism. It just strikes me as saying, "We can't come up with anything better for this." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

How about Diversity? -- 109.76.230.36 (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It sounds to me like the simplest method (and the one that seems to have the most consensus) is to restore the Controversy section, but to name it something more specific, like "Criticism over casting decisions" or something like that. I find that I am pretty well persuaded that all the casting reaction stuff should be in a different section, not the Production section, since it's not a part of a film production, which Erik pointed out; even lawsuits over production developments are generally given their own section near the end of a film article. If the casting had resulted in lawsuits that affected production, then maybe a cogent argument would exist for this material being in the production section. As it is, other than a renaming of the section, I see the initial move by the IP a day or two ago to be the best fit for the article. Grandpallama (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have stalled out, and the consensus is that the controversy section should be restored, but with more specific naming. I have now done so. Grandpallama (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. The section title is fine, I added an extra anchor for the word Controversy too. -- 37.110.218.43 (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense, given that reference is made to the casting issues in the Casting section. Grandpallama (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I like this structuring as well. Good use of the anchor link to the criticism section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

"over $226 million"

Yes, $226.9 million is "over $226 million". However, it is also "under $227 million". In fact, the second one is more accurate. To make the number feel bigger, though, we prefer the POV "over".

What else might be better than "over $226 million"? How about "$226.9 million"? It's shorter, more informative and has no POV attached to it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

New York images

Hi Castncoot, I have noticed that you have been making multiple edits to the plot section without pursuing dialogue in talk, despite being requested to do so. May I ask why you feel the need to remove relevant images to the film from the article, and insist on adding your own unrelated images of New York City into the article? There were no scenes filmed in New York, save for an unexceptional five second drone shot of some New York buildings. The "NYU lecture theatre" was filmed in Putrajaya, "West Village" was filmed in Kuala Lumpur and Penang, and "John F. Kennedy International Airport" was filmed at Kuala Lumpur International Airport. Do remember that while you may have observed that the cars have New York licence plates, the signboard also has "Pacific Asean Airlines" written on it (when that airline doesn't exist) and JFK does not have free luggage trolleys, which are placed right outside the exit in the scene.

All of the "New York" scenes add up to a total screentime of only a few minutes, and it is unconvincing and bold to somehow suggest that those few minutes are significant and sufficient enough to necessitate adding irrelevant and unrelated images of an NYU monument and the generic New York skyline into the article, over images of actual filming locations that are not displayed for just a few seconds. Furthermore, please refrain from using ad hominem attacks ("if you want to add an umpteenth image of Singapore" from your edit summary). Yes, images of Singaporean places will be added, as it is a film set in Singapore. A film set in the United States will obviously feature lots of images of American locations, so I do not understand why you are complaining that a film set in Singapore features lots of images of Singaporean locations. It's a bit ridiculous to suggest that there may be too many images of a certain country, when the film is set in that exact country. Is there anything wrong with displaying different images of different filming locations?

Perhaps you may feel that you really want to include some representation for New York City, which you seem to have a great interest in, thus you wish to add an image of it in the article? Please do let me know your reasons for wanting to include your New York images into the article, and refrain from unconstructively undoing others' edits just because you dislike them. Let's have a civil discussion to improve the article. Thanks. Weslam (talk • contrib) 04:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you still feel that way after my latest edit? It's a highly constructive one. The bottom line is that it tells the story properly to the reader. The film absolutely set the stage by displaying the NYC skyline. And you're not able to see that this is highly relevant? Give me a break. More pertinently, why do you keep pushing more and more images of Singapore, and why are you so bent on not representing the US AT ALL, where the entire premise for the plot is created? Rachel Chu is a Chinese American, and that's a monumental thematic element here with respect to cultural conflicts with Nick' family. Do you not see that? What exactly is your problem? Castncoot (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Relax. Let's have a civil discussion to improve the article.

First, we're not here to "tell the story properly to the reader". From WP:FILMPLOT: "Plot summaries are self-contained sections ("Plot", "Plot summary") in film articles that complement wider coverage about the films' production, reception, themes, and other real-world aspects" and "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events". I've included that image of Changi Airport as it is relevant to the article, given that the image of that filming location complements the film production.

Second, the film did not "set the stage by displaying the NYC skyline". That's entirely for aesthetics. The film did the exact same thing for London, Singapore, Samara Island, international waters, Rawa Island, and possibly other locations that I cannot remember. All these opening shots are for the sole purpose of introducing the location in an aesthetic manner. Perhaps we should include images of all of these locations as well. Let's add a sentence to describe the opening hotel scene, along with an added image of the London skyline, to represent the United Kingdom in the article.

Third, again, please refrain from ad hominem attacks ("why do you keep pushing more and more images of Singapore"). I've added exactly one image of a Singaporean location into the article (not counting a previous image of CHIJMES that I removed myself), which is Changi Airport Terminal 2. I've explained my rationale for that above. It's relevant and related to the article. I've only made one edit adding that image to the article, whereas you have made multiple edits adding images. It would be more accurate to say that you are the one who's pushing more and more images of New York City. I've explained above: a film set in Singapore would have lots of images of Singaporean locations, just like how a film set in the United States would have lots of images of American locations. Unless you're suggesting that this film had only one filming location?

Fourth, your loaded question assumes that I am somehow "bent on not representing the US AT ALL". I'm not looking to represent any countries in any articles, and neither does Wikipedia's policy say anything about national representations, save for flag icons. I'm here to improve the article and add relevant content to it. Wikipedia articles aren't for representing countries. Why do you even feel the need to "represent the US" in the first place, especially by adding irrelevant images?

Fifth, Rachel's ethnic and national background is irrelevant both to your image of the New York skyline, and to the plot section of any film article. From WP:FILMPLOT again: "Since films are primary sources in their articles... may be used only to make descriptive claims.. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." and "simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article". "Chinese American representation" is entirely irrelevant in this specific section, but has been thoroughly covered in the reception section. Even if it is somehow relevant, both images which you added to the article are entirely unrelated to cultural and ethnic themes in themselves, and can hardly be said to represent those themes by being in the article. You may have a personal interest in such themes, and it does feature in interpretations of the film, but isn't relevant to this section at all, and your images aren't related to those themes either.

I want to improve this article in accordance to Wikipedia's policies, and I'm sure you do as well. However, a few minutes of "New York scenes" really does not necessitate adding irrelevant images of New York, especially when those images are not even of locations in the film. From MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE: "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative... too many can be distracting." Remember, significant and relevant. You haven't provided any sort of justification for adding those images, while insisting on removing the relevant images that I have added. Perhaps you could clarify your position and rationale to me? Otherwise, I will proceed and remove your image of the New York skyline. I hope you understand. Thanks. Weslam (talk • contrib) 05:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

PS: Castncoot, there are only four images of Singaporean locations in the article (not counting the image I added of Changi Airport), and three images of Malaysian locations. All (including Changi) are filming locations, and are not images of the same places. I really don't know what you mean by "umpteenth image" or "more and more images". Weslam (talk • contrib) 05:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

<Yes, while you appear to be seething seeing any image of NYC displayed as a proud Singaporean (lovely country, by the way), I will explain to you exactly why the NYC image may in fact be one of the most critical and sentinel images of all to the plot section. But I need just a bit of time, as I unfortunately don't have the luxury of the free time which you appear to have in order to come up with such a detailed and lengthy answer at the moment. Stay tuned. Best, > Castncoot (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Please avoid using ad hominem attacks. Per WP:CIVIL: "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect." Per WP:PERSONAL: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia... [such as] Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." A majority of my edits are not on Singaporean articles, and for my edits that are on Singaporean articles, as someone from that country, I would, mindblowingly, be able to contribute my knowledge of that very country to improve those articles. As for "while you appear to be seething seeing any image of NYC", please refer to my patient explanations above. I don't go to articles on New York City and delete images from there. There just isn't any justification, especially as you haven't provided any, for images of New York to be added in this specific article. And regarding my sentence "Perhaps you may feel that you really want to include some representation for New York City...", that's not a personal attack. I'm legitimately trying to figure out your justification for your insistence on adding those images to the article, and am suggesting what I think may be a possible reason, supported by evidence from your contributions history.

You don't seem to be willing to engage in civil discussion. I'm trying to understand your perspective and justifications, but you're not telling me anything beyond attacking me. SnapSnap, Leylov, BrunzPOP, sorry to trouble you guys, but I have noticed that you've all edited this article fairly recently/frequently. May I ask for your opinions on this matter? Thanks very much. Weslam (talk • contrib) 14:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

You are really something. I clearly said I needed time to respond, if you look above. Stop being paranoid suspecting ad hominem attacks and stick to the subject, please. Here is my response:

First of all, the nighttime NYC skyline was featured explicitly in the film, so let's get any doubts about that out of the way. The film's camera took a live nighttime shot of the skyline and dynamic automobile traffic. I don't recall the London skyline being featured in the film, but even if per chance it was, the UK scene itself was superfluous and dispensable in that it had no essential bearing on the plot, which is the article section in question here; this particular UK scene could have been cut out and five minutes would be have been shaved and saved without consequence. (I actually don't know why you included it as a standalone item in the text of the plot section.)

On the other hand, the New York scenes were absolutely critical to establish the plot line and cumulatively lasted roughly 15 plot-defining and information-packed minutes, not insubstantial. An appropriately representative image for the New York scenes in summary would be a nighttime NYC skyline picture, especially when the skyline was indeed shown in the film. To not include any New York scenes would be bizarre and remiss. I think that most editors seem to understand this, which why the NYU Washington Square image stayed up as long as it did.

New York ---> is where Rachel and Nick live, from the outset of the movie, and even through the end of the movie.

New York ---> is where Rachel and Nick were shown at a bar in the West Village (of Greenwich Village). Nick suggested that they travel somewhere further east. Rachel first asked, "the East Village"? Nick indicated further east. Then Rachel asked, "Queens?" Nick responded even further east and then mentioned Singapore to attend his best friend Colin's wedding.

New York ---> is where, at that very moment that Nick invited Rachel, a watcher from "Radio Asia" immediately corresponded this news by social media to contacts all over Singapore and Asia that Nick would be bringing Rachel to Singapore for Colin's wedding. Immediately Nick's mother called Nick about this, to his surprise, as he had just given Rachel this invitation minutes before.

New York ---> is where Rachel was shown teaching at NYU her "win-it-all" philosophy in game theory, which would come into direct play during the mahjong game in Singapore.

New York ---> is where Rachel's mother warns her that she will be viewed a Chinese American outsider while in Singapore. It goes without saying that this point pervaded the entire movie.

New York ---> is where Rachel first discovered embarking on the flight at JFK (even if that scene was filmed in Kuala Lumpur) that Nick's family is very wealthy.

Then continuing in Singapore, the presence of New York, and more importantly the New York/Singapore dichotomy, loomed significantly large throughout, making the New York/Singapore coupled image particularly relevant and providing a smooth flow of transition to the plot line:

A) Arriving at Changi Airport, Rachel contrasts JFK and Changi.

B) Rachel explained to Nick's mother that her (Rachel's) mother worked her way up as a Chinese immigrant New Yorker to become the number one realtor in Flushing, as opposed to bearing inherited family wealth.

C) Nick explained to his mother that Rachel was the youngest professor ever at NYU.

D) On Colin's Rawa Island private getaway with Nick, Colin and Nick discuss the diametrically opposite consequences between Nick's options of staying in Singapore and taking over the family business versus returning to New York married to Rachel.

E) Nick suggests to Rachel that he is prepared to leave his family and "start a new life in New York" with Rachel.

F) Rachel boards a flight back to New York before Nick proposes to her and they decide to stay in Singapore for a few more days to celebrate.

Now, to respond to your five points above:

1) "From WP:FILMPLOT: "Plot summaries are self-contained sections ("Plot", "Plot summary") in film articles that complement wider coverage about the films' production, reception, themes, and other real-world aspects" and "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events"." ---> Affirmative. The fact in conjunction with the image caption that Rachel and Nick live in New York City is obviously the anchoring point of the entire movie's premise and theme of conflict.

2) The NYC skyline was shown explicitly; set the stage for the New York scenes; and is absolutely an apropos representation for the New York experience of the film, which is critical as explained in detail above.

3) ONE image of New York, compared to many images of Singapore and Malaysia, is appropriate. Likewise, numerous images of Singapore and Malaysia, in comparison to one image of New York, is appropriate. What is NOT appropriate is your incomprehensible insistence that there be zero images of NYC. That's when an Asia:US ratio of 7:0 becomes WP:UNDUE.

4) reinforces 3): One image of New York, compared to many images of Singapore and Malaysia, is appropriate. Likewise, numerous images of Singapore and Malaysia, in comparison to one image of New York, is appropriate. What is NOT appropriate is your incomprehensible insistence that there be zero images of NYC. That's when an Asia:US ratio of 7:0 becomes WP:UNDUE. There is no issue of nationalism here. The issue is one of balanced and due representation to give the reader the accurate picture of the movie's plot line and theme. A 7:0 ratio would be entirely fallacious to profile.

5) "WP:FILMPLOT again: "Since films are primary sources in their articles... may be used only to make descriptive claims.. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source."" The text of the plot section is not what we are talking about here, it is an image. And the coupled image in place accurately and simply describes and transmits the sentinel premise immediately into the reader's brain, within seconds, that Rachel and Nick are traveling from New York to Singapore.

5b) Below your fifth point, you added an extra statement that ""Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative... too many can be distracting."" I've always understood that the only whole number less than the number "1" (the number of images of NYC on this page) is the number "0" ("zero") ("zilch") ---> so now suddenly ONE image has become "too many", and thereby "distracting", when the entire plot line juxtaposes New York and Singapore??

Having one single NYC image on the page is what the vast majority editors have seemed to be comfortable with for months.

You say that the New York skyline image is "generic"? That is specifically the point, that the skyline is the encapsulating cover for the New York experience of the film—and the cinematography captured this exact point with chronological explicitness.

I hereby rest my case beyond any reasonable doubt, that the current juxtaposed double image of NYC/Singapore in place, is both the most significant and most relevant to the plot of the movie, to this article, and even more specifically, to the plot section of the article. Hopefully a proud Singaporean (said in courtesy) will see this crystally clearly. Best, Castncoot (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

You know that "Stop being paranoid suspecting ad hominem attacks" is an ad hominem in itself, right? I have never claimed that the shot of the New York buildings did not exist. It's simply not relevant. As I've said, that specific scene is entirely for aesthetics. Every other location has the same introduction, which is solely for introducing the location aesthetically. Moreover, it is a five second shot. That's not very significant. If the New York skyline image should be added to the article, so should an image of Singapore's Downtown Core, as well as Penang's E&O Hotel, the Four Seasons Langkiwi, and a random container ship in the ocean. And just so you know, the "Calthorpe Hotel" scene lasts for 2:44. The "NYU lecture" scene (filmed in Putrajaya) lasts for 1:16, the New York buildings shot lasts for 0:05, the "West Willage" scene (filmed in Kuala Lumpur and Penang) lasts for 1:30 then for another 0:50, Rachel's home scene lasts for 1:28, and the "JFK Airport" scene (filmed at KLIA) lasts for 0:29, giving a total of New York City screentime of 5:38. So yes, it is a few minutes.

Thank you for giving me a play by play description of what happened. I have watched the film too. But you seem to be missing the point. You've explained how the New York scenes play a role in the plot (as is the rest of the entire film), which I have never even contested in the first place. But here, we're talking about images. Yes, even if I grant that all your points about how New York City is so incredibly significant are all true, that doesn't justify adding random images of New York skylines into the article.

You say that "which why the NYU Washington Square image stayed up as long as it did", without any sort of basis or evidence for your claim. Pinpointing that to a single causation would suggest that there could be no other possible reason that nobody else took down the image. You say that "Having one single NYC image on the page is what the vast majority editors have seemed to be comfortable with for months." Really? How do you know that? Did you ask every single one of them to find out? You seem to be assuming that anytime someone edits an article, they thoroughly check through all ~115,000 characters and eliminate all errors at once, and could not possibly have just not examined your image thoroughly and thought deeply about it. It's a very poor argument and very fallacious to suggest that you're "correct" just because your image has been left on the article for some time.

Are all of the combined New York scenes as a whole significant? Yes, they are. Is your image of the New York skyline significant? No, it isn't, because it represents a shot that had appeared for exactly 5 seconds in the entire 2 hour film with zero plot significance in itself as it is only for aesthetics. Your argument about "juxtaposition" and all that isn't relevant here. From Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image_content: "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter..." Does an image of the New York skyline help readers understand the article better? No. Do those two "juxtaposed" images help? No; any contrast of both countries belongs to other sections, if at all, and your caption is confusing too. Do images of filming locations help them understand? Yes, because you're telling them where those scenes were filmed, while providing a visual aid to help them compare the filming location to how it looked like in the film. Again, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative... too many can be distracting." That image of the New York skyline may be related, but isn't significant or relevant, only decorative. Don't try to bring up the significance of all the New York scenes in total to argue that a 5 second shot in that sequence is significant by itself.

Feel free to add images of actual filming locations with plot significance, such as the "West Village cafe" (if you can identify exactly which eatery it is) or KLIA. Thanks for explaining your rationale to me, but it's still not convincing enough for you to insist on adding that image. However, I don't think we're getting anywhere, especially if you keep insisting on bringing up my nationality in ad hominem attacks, as if that's somehow relevant to the discussion. User:SummerPhDv2.0, User:Erik, and User:Grandpallama, sorry to bother you guys too, but I've noticed that you've all helped resolve an earlier dispute on this article. Would you guys mind sharing your opinions on this so we can resolve this one? Thanks very much. Weslam (talk • contrib) 06:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia is much more flexible about the use of free images than non-free images, where the latter would require critical commentary from reliable sourcing. With free images, it's unfortunately easier to opine about why to include or not. In my experience, free images largely focus on specific filming locations. I'm not finding that the NYC skyline image is necessary compared to the other images, especially when we don't show other skyline images. It's too general. Compare this with something like Nolan's Batman films where he uses Chicago as a backdrop for Gotham City, which could be more "necessary" to show (though the Wikipedia articles do not use any such Chicago skyline images). I do not see New York discussed in this article body much at all to make a case for inclusion. Other editors are welcome to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's be honest here, Weslam. Scores of editors allowed the NYU image to remain up there for a matter of several weeks to a few months. If that image had been something considered to be irrelevant, it would not have survived as long as it did. Rachel was indeed deemed to be the youngest professor ever at NYU in the story, and certainly that is a very significant fact because she was a Chinese American who worked her way up to that honor. Understand that the largest audience for this film was American, and so some important cultural nuances may not be evident to all editors on this forum.

Let's also be honest that were it not for Rachel and Nick's ongoing relationship in New York, there would have been no Singapore storyline and therefore no movie in the first place. It takes two hands to clap, and the reader benefits from knowing the basic premise for the plotline in a single image, as that double image inserts into the reader's brain in a New York minute. Please look at the big picture here, rather than focusing on minutes and seconds, which you've been doing throughout this debate.

I don't understand the big deal you make about the skyline image - it's simply meant to be a generic stand-in for the fact that Rachel and Nick live in New York City. That's all. Now if the caption were to read, "This is the New York skyline," then of course that would be a problem. Perhaps the caption for the NYU image shouldn't have included any mention of the Washington Square Arch itself, which is simply an icon of NYU.

Having one generic New York image is innocuous and helpful to the reader to understand the plotline both at its surface and at its significance underneath, and is therefore constructive to the article. Not having a single representative New York image, whether it's the skyline or of NYU, would be disingenuous to the movie, untrue to the story, unconstructive to the article, and a clear disservice to the reader. Castncoot (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Responding to the ping; I'll say I think my read on this largely agrees with Erik's. I haven't seen this film (despite my earlier intervention in an editing dispute), so I'm not going to say much. What I will say is that the decision to include/exclude a location image relative to a film should, in my opinion, be dictated by the importance of the location to the film. Including a picture of NYC for a Woody Allen film, or for Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in America, is the sort of thing that makes great sense to me. As would a shot of 1920s Chicago for The Untouchables, or the particular lagoon where The Beach was filmed. But if the location of the film isn't integral to the plot, or isn't (as with some movies), almost a character in the film unto itself, it's hard to make the argument that including a picture of said location is particularly relevant. This is especially true for films that take place across a variety of locations--how does one determine which locations should be included and which excluded? Again, I haven't seen this film, but my understanding is that it's fairly global and takes place in a variety of locales, so I'm skeptical that a valid argument exists that an image specifically of NYC should be included, particularly if other editors are objecting to its inclusion. Grandpallama (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Valid points all around. The only thing I would request though is that for people to see the film before they comment, because until you've seen the film, one doesn't really have that first-hand experience and feel of the overall detail and nuances of the film. Grandpallama has apparently not seen the film, and it's unclear if Erik has. In response to Erik's statement above, by the way, New York is mentioned twice in the body of the plot section as of its current writing; Singapore is mentioned three times; the "United States" is mentioned once; and Malaysia has no mentions at all. Castncoot (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The idea that people need to see this particular film in order to express a basic editing principle about when to include/exclude particular images is probably the most invalid statement I've thus far read in this conversation. So far, I see three editors affirming that a clear argument for its inclusion hasn't been made (because, to be clear, New York is mentioned twice in the body of the plot section in no way substantiates the idea that NYC is integral to the plot in the same way it is integral in the films that both Erik and I mentioned). In order to persuade other editors and change what appears to be the evolving consensus of "exclusion" here, a better case needs to be made. Grandpallama (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Now that particular point is illogical. If it's not necessary to know the film first, and if as Erik suggests, there should be corresponding mention in the plot section, then...why do we even have any Malaysia images here? At some point the story line does matter, especially in a section entitled "Plot". Castncoot (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The images of Malaysian places are in the article because they're filming locations. Apart from the drone shot, New York City was not a filming location at all. That aside, you've said that the three of us have made "Valid points all around." Does this mean that you are in consensus with our perspectives? If so, I will proceed to remove your image of the New York skyline, and hope that you will refrain from adding any other image of New York City. Otherwise, I'll ping more editors to get their opinions. Please confirm, thanks. Weslam (talk • contrib) 07:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I was just trying to be courteous and polite. That said, there were more invalid points than valid points all around. We are far from consensus. One editor feels that imaged locations need to be in the plot (which would include NYC and Singapore, but not Malaysia), while another states quite the opposite. Do you have any evidence that the NYC shot was filmed by a drone? And even if it was filmed by a drone, that still makes it a filming location a la 2018. Please do ping other editors for opinions, preferably some who have actually seen the film for that more valuable insight and topic-tailored judgment. Best, Castncoot (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Three editors have already argued against adding images of New York City to the article: we're not "far from consensus" as you seem to suggest, and in fact seem to be leaning towards it. You're being stubborn and yet can't bring up any new relevant arguments. Please try to be open minded when others disagree with you, and not take up our time. With our current consensus, I'm going ahead to remove your image for now, and hope that you will cooperate and refrain from adding any other image of New York City. But if you really insist on asking for the opinions of even more editors, while somehow being unable to ping them yourself: SnapSnap, Leylov, BrunzPOP, SummerPhDv2.0, DanielleTH, IceBrotherhood, TropicAces, Evope, Hayholt, Sdkb, Mliu92, sorry to bother, but would you mind sharing your opinions too? I hope this satisfies you, Castncoot, and if consensus does lean in your favour, we can then reevaluate if your images should be included in the article. Thanks very much. Weslam (talk • contrib) 08:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I personally don’t see the point in having any images in the Plot section, I’ve never seen it in any other film article. That being said, New York City is one full scene in the film? And someone above said just one drone shot was actually filmed there? I don’t feel that warrants including a photo of the city in the section; people know what NYC looks like, they don’t need context. I vote no images. TropicAces (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

I'm with TropicAces. Adding images to the "Plot" section is not common practice in film articles; this kind of images is more suitable for "Production"/"Filming" sections. New York City is not a significant part of the plot, so I don't see the point in adding images of it. snapsnap ^(talk) 16:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with TropicAces, I haven't seen images in the plot section before and, ignoring that for a moment, with the presence of the infobox it makes the entire section look very cluttered and distracting. As for the image of skyline itself, I don't see the need for it simply because New York is used as set up for the film and is fairly unimportant after the first few minutes. The culture and location of Singapore is central to the film; New York is not. Rachel Chu could just as easily be from Cincinnati and the plot of the film would hardly change. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 01:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I saw the film. If I summarized it for a friend, I wouldn't mention NYC. It's not a meaningful part of the plot. The scene in question might as well have been in Vancouver, Nairobi or Munich. All of the location photos are, IMO, wildly out of place in the "Plot" section and really don't seem to have any place in this article. Were the locations used in the film the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources such that there were a meaningful section in the article, we might have cause for it. As it stands, the photos are distracting decoration. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is clear enough. Fair points about having images in the plot section. Looks like no images of New York City should be in the article, and I will move all other current images to production. Will also remove the Langkiwi image to save space, since that one seems pretty generic, but feel free to re-add it if anyone thinks it should be there. Thanks all, I appreciate your inputs. Weslam (talk • contrib) 08:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

References

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Crazy Rich Asians (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DAP388 (talk · contribs) 04:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): 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):

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This is an article in pretty good shape. Only a few minor issues stand out presently, and once they are addressed, then we’re good to go!

Lead

• This section looks a bit thin with the current formatting. Would either recommend merging the second paragraph with the opening paragraph, or expand it with information about audience response to the film in Singapore and China during the press tour, or criticism about the film’s casting choices (or other relevant information), to improve the flow and ultimately create a more concise summary of the article.

Added a mention of the controversies. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 01:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Plot

• "while Nick's cousin Astrid", redundant, since the connection between the two is already established in the opening sentence.
• "especially with Nick expected to inherit his family's corporation", needs clarification. Corporations have multiple shareholders and hence you cannot inherit an entire corporation. You can inherit stocks or shares of a corporation though. Something like "especially with Nick expected to inherit a share of his family’s corporation" will suffice.
• "At the wedding, Rachel stands up to Amanda and Eleanor, asserting herself against them", third half is redundant. No need for that when Rachel standing up to Amanda and Eleanor has already been established prior.
• "Using the findings of a private investigation, they reveal that Rachel was conceived through an adulterous affair, after which Rachel's mother, Kerry, abandoned her husband and fled to the United States, and demand Nick to stop seeing Rachel for fear of a scandal." A bit clunky. Should be broken up into separate sentences instead of a run-on, probably after the bit about Kerry fleeing to the US.

Corrected all. For the "inherit" concerns, the film states that he's expected to eventually run it, as in become its CEO. So I've changed the sentence to "Colin expresses his concern about the trouble it will cause Rachel, especially with Nick expected to run his family's corporation in the future". I broke up the final bullet into two separate sentences. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 01:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Costumes

• "Costume design was handled by Mary Vogt with Andrea Wong serving as a consultant and senior costume buyer", comma after Vogt.

Done. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 02:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Box Office

• "In Singapore, the location of film for the majority of its duration, Crazy Rich Asians grossed over $5 million." Single sentence paragraphs are discouraged. Merge with another paragraph or, if possible, expand with pertinent information about the box office performance in Singapore.

Expanded the paragraph. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 01:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

DanielleTH, That’s all. Let me know when you’ve made the changes and I’ll take another look. Cheers! DAP 💅 23:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

All changes made, DAP388. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 02:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks good. Happy to give it the green light. Great work! DAP 💅 02:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Casting of the character Araminta Lee

The description "Araminta Lee, another Singaporean Chinese character" is somewhat misleading by implication, because (in the book, at least) she's supposed to be part-Uighur, since her mother is from Xinjiang... AnonMoos (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Douban

Please note that scores from Douban are like scores from IMDB, they are are both WP:USERGENERATED (another unreliable user voted web poll) and not normally directly notable by themselves but can sometimes be included if other sources report them. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_313#Douban

I'm going to tag the Douban score as {{Better reference needed}} for now, but it should be removed if there is there is no better source available. -- 109.79.176.62 (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

{{Better reference needed}} asks for a better reference for the existing content and not for a change of content so I have removed it.[9] The official Douban site is the best source for the score on Douban. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, it wasn't that I wanted any content changed, a direct link to Douban was enough to WP:VERIFY the information. The problem was that it needs a reliable source to show it is WP:NOTABLE, for example if a newspaper like South China Morning Post saw fit to highlight the Douban score that would be enough to show it was notable (which is what was needed in the article Mulan_(2020_film)).

I see now that the Box office section also mentions Douban, with references from Deadline, Variety, and Reuters. One of those might be enough to show that Douban is notable in this case and that there is enough reason to make an exception and include it. It might be possible to reuse one/some of those references to justify including Douban in the Critical response section. -- 109.76.144.154 (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:USERGENERATED scores from web polls, such as those from IMDB or Douban, are only notable after a secondary source reports them. We can include the score because Variety reported it.[10] -- 109.78.198.162 (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Aljazeera analysis of why Crazy Rich Asians flop in China and the negative response from Chinese audience from this moive

I think this is worth including to this article. It not only explain why the film flop in China so hard but also provide different perspective other than the west

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2018/12/13/why-crazy-rich-asians-was-a-box-office-flop-in-china --Someone97816 (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)