Talk:Loev/GA1

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.

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 16:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely take the time to review this. I have only recently decided to go on a Wikibreak, and will slowly (but surely lol) be less and less active on here, but I would be more than happy to help with this, especially since you have put so much work into it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has been sooo much work, I think the most that I have put into any article since Koechlin's. It's so difficult to find information on Indian independent films, but I am almost proud of this article, because this one's my Sévérine, I built this one from scratch. NumerounovedantTalk 16:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine. It is very impressive that you found all of these references and built it up so much from scratch. Congrats on this; you definitely deserve a lot of praise for it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Music to my ears, well eyes, whatever. XD NumerounovedantTalk 17:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Music all around lol Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I would break up the second sentence of the lead's first paragraph in smaller sentences as it contains a lot of information and it would read better if it was broken up a little more.
In the same part, avoid using "company" twice in such close proximity to one another.
In the same part, make sure it is clear which one of the two died during the post-production. You name both actors and then when you reference the death you use the pronoun, which could confuse the reader. Maybe make the death into its own sentence to fix this?
I am not sure that "resorted to" is the best phrase as it implies that the producers had different plans to get money for the film, but then turned to these two methods as a "last resort". Maybe "relied on" would be better and avoid the potential for misinterpretation.

although they did have to resort to it, as financers backed out several times, but i agree that with no context in the lead your choice works better.

Oh, you are right. I wrote this comment while just reading the lead, but that makes sense to me. Either version is fine by me. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it I am Here or I Am Here? Make sure to be consistent.
Also, since it does not have its own article, please clarify what I am Here is as the term "project" is rather vague.
The "American" in "independent american cinema" should be capitalized.
The phrase "honour his memory" sounds a little odd to me, and I would think something along the lines of how it was dedicated to him would read better.

I am sorry, but can you help me here? The source says honour, and I haven't seen what exactly does the film do with these opening credits and I don't want to write anything inappropriate considering the sensitive issue here.

It is fine as it stands as it is probably more of a style choice. I just have not heard of that expression before, as I have more so heard of the credits being dedicated to someone instead. Again, it is a more stylistic choice and your version makes sense in the context so I will not press it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add ALT text for the image of Mahabaleshwar.
Link shoestring budget in the body of the article. Remember the lead is treated separately from the rest of the article so items should be linked in both.

Actually, i removed this bit, there's already a mention of the budget in the next paragraph.

Good point; that makes it a lot better. Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason why Danish Aslam was the special screening of the film? Aslam is not mentioned in the article at all so some context may be helpful for an unfamiliar reader, since he is prominently featured in the image.

No clue, but yes I do agree that naming these people and putting up pictures of someone not there is weird and funny. Will this be highly inappropriate too?

I think the image is actually fine; I was more so curious about it more so than anything. I do not think that replacing is needed, especially since if a reader is really confused then they can click on the link for Danish Aslam. Having outside directors and actors appear during a screening is pretty normal so a reader should be able to understand it (hopefully); I just wanted to make sure there was not a deeper connection. Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure to avoid shouting (put words in all caps) in the references. I see Loev was put in all caps a very times and reference 19 contains an example as well. Even if the title of the original article does it, you want to avoid this to comply with Wikipedia policy.
I would put the date that the Indiegogo campaign started and ended if that information is available.
I would think critically about the structure of the "Domestic" subsection. If you are going to separate the information into two paragraphs, it would be more ideal to have them focus on two clear topics/points from the reception or just combine the two paragraphs together as they are rather short and both focus on the same ideas.
In this source 1, you cited, the critic makes connections between this film and Wong Kar Wai’s Happy Together and Andrew Haigh’s Weekend. I would think this would be beneficial to add to the article in some way in the "Critical reception" section. If you do use the films, make sure to link them and the directors and add the release years.

Well, I agree but I think with no context to what led the writer to draw the comparison, it becomes a little hard to substantiate these facts. I'm going to leave this one out untill of course I find a better way to incorporate it.

That makes sense to me. I just thought it was an interest factoid, but I agree that context is extremely important. Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment

Wonderful work with this. Once my comments are addressed, I will pass this. I will definitely see this in the near future. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look through one of my two open GANs. I understand though if you do not have the time or energy to do so. Either way, it was a pleasure to work with you and I greatly enjoyed reading through and reviewing this article. I am just taking a break from Wikipedia to focus on getting my career started (too bad I can't use the Wikipedia articles that I have worked on for my portfolio lol). Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Fixed everything/left comments. Again, I can't thank you enough for taking this. For whatever it's worth, you just light up everything you touch, write, type. XD I really do hope you translate that into your work, good luck, plus you already have a fan in me. NumerounovedantTalk 20:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! That is very sweet of you to say. I will ✓ Pass this. It was wonderful to work with you, and I look forward to working with you again in the future when I have more time to work on here. Good luck with your future project, and congratulations again on all of the hard work that you put into this article. Have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.