Talk:Wild Tales (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film's nationality[edit]

Asqueladd recently changed the film's nationality from Argentine to Argentine-Spanish. While it's true and the article does mention that it is a co-production between Argentina and Spain both in the infobox and in "Production"'s third paragraph, WP:FILMLEAD requires some procedures. It says: "If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section". So, almost all reliable sources call it an Argentine film without no mention to Spain at all (click at random at any of the sources in the article and you'll see it); also, even awards from Spain like Goya and Forqué Awards kind of recognize it as non-Spanish film when they qualify it as "Iberoamerican" and "Latin-American", respectively. I'd like to hear Asqueladd and fellow Wikipedians instance on it. Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If most sources consider it an Argentine film, then we should go with that in the first sentence, even if it's actually a co-production. We can mention its co-production status later in the lead. —El Millo (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't feel that's the spirit in MOS:FILM. which correct me if I am wrong is: do not repeat country details in two places in the lead, and if production details vis-à-vis countries are too messy for the opening statement you can always move them to a place later it the lead leaving the opening statement blank from country adjectives. I don't get that being deliberatedly incomplete when we have quality sources stating reality is more complex than a singular country of production (we can certainly affirm that this film is an Argentine-Spain co-production without committing to any original research) and then ammending your initial statement later in the lead is the way to go. If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources the film's nationality is not singularly defined as such by plenty of sources going into the details of the production. So, the way I see it, instead of the current revision we can move the country details to a place later in the lead leaving the opening statement blank from the "nationality", but pulling your proposal is not in the spirit of the rule like at all. even awards from Spain like Goya and Forqué Awards kind of recognize it as non-Spanish film Excuse me? If the film were not considered partially "Spanish-produced" by those awards the film would not qualify for any non-Americas-specific category in those awards (which is not the case), but that's besides the point: it's not like we depend on a consideration from certain awards to assert the co-production status, really.--Asqueladd (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, you're wrong about the award qualifying procedure. Second, I've just mentioned them because they are reliable sources. Third, the co-production status is not under discussion. I've said from the start it's clear a co-production and it's was already sourced and treated like that in the article, except for the opening sentence because of MOS:FILM. Anyway, rewrote it after other users commentaries. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good - thanks for doing that. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The production section states that the budget is 70/30 from Argentina/Spain, and that's sourced back to the Hollywood Reporter article. But it's clearly a film set and shot in Argentina, with an Argentine director and cast. Probably should be just Argentina in the lead, or use the term "international co-production" instead of listing more than one country. I'll drop a note at WT:FILM for more input before I book us all onto the same plane... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be consistent with the guidelines to remove the countries from the opening sentence. Two of our most eminent sources (the BFI and the Lumiere database) regard it to be a joint production between two countries. One of the countries may well be a "junior" partner but that is probably true of most international co-productions and is not our call to make. Betty Logan (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also endorse removing the countries, and I would suggest instead to add language. I feel like the idea of having nationality in the opening sentence is to indicate what kind of film it is (like why we include genre when possible). Nationality generally tends to imply language, like French films will be French-language. So perhaps here we can call it a "Spanish-language... film" upfront and explain the contributions of Spain and Argentina later in the lead section? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: To use an example, Amour (2012 film) is French-language while three countries co-produced. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Wild Tales (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Daß Wölf (talk · contribs) 00:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! I will begin the review shortly. Daß Wölf 00:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First round[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Hello! I am picking up the nominators role here at the request of the reviewer. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    I am on my first read through, and I made two minor changes to the lead, but the last sentence of the third paragraph of the lead - The director believed its theme of "man versus a system that's designed against him" would have universal appeal because of the status of power and wealth concentration. - needs clarifying, and I am unsure what the original intent was. Why would power having status have universal appeal? Does this sentence mean it is the struggle to obtain status, power and wealth in modern society that cages us in? I think that's probably it, but right now I have no source support. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm guessing this sentence intends to summarise the second-to-last paragraph in the Themes section. I agree that this should be clearer. There are a lot of themes listed in that para, though. I don't know which would be the best choice for the summary. Daß Wölf 12:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  5. 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):
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments[edit]

  • 1 "A teenager, in his wealthy father's car, arrives home after committing a hit-and-run on a pregnant woman." -- suggest "A teenager arrives home in his wealthy father's car, having committed..." Daß Wölf 02:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 The plot is a good bit over 700 words but I think that can be excused given it's an omnibus film. Daß Wölf 02:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. Also, if you wouldn't mind, if you would sign each of your comments as you make them, that would make it much easier for me to reply. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 "The second, third, fourth, and sixth segments are partly based on real-life situations Szifron went through; the second was written immediately after he had an argument with another driver." -- Are the numbers correct here? From reading the source it seems the third one ("El más fuerte") comes from Szifron's argument with a driver. It might be better to use names of the segments instead. Daß Wölf 02:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 "Ultimately, he thought neither comedy nor drama were appropriate labels, and considered "catastrophe movie" is a good term for it." -- grammatical, but awkward, suggest "...as a good term..." Daß Wölf 02:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5 "Szifron considered each of the main cast members to be main-role actors who are rarely seen in the same film." -- I'd suggest "...who rarely appear together in the same film." or a similar workaround. It'll unfortunately be a closer paraphrase of the source, but I don't think this sentence "works" as written. Daß Wölf 02:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems okay now. Someone must have fixed it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6 "Psychologist Diana Paulozky, in an interview for La Voz del Interior, said Wild Tales' includes visible violence and the one constrained, hidden in cynicism, moral hypocrisy, and denigration that may start a turmoil." -- suggest rewording. Daß Wölf 02:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jeez louise yes! I'll check what the source says exactly. It's in Spanish and I have to join. I'll be back! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I cannot for the life of me get access to this one. I have tried and tried, last night and today. I have joined, logged in, rejoined, logged in again, and then again, and I can see that the article is there, but it will not let me see it. I can do my best to guess and rewrite the prose, which needs doing as you say, but I cannot guarantee accuracy. If you can access it, please do so, and fix it accordingly, but if you want me to do it, knowing I can't see what the source actually says, you will have to tell me so. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did something. If you are okay with it this is  Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Sorry, I missed this comment before. I can see the text and managed to save it in the Wayback Machine here. I hope this helps. I believe the Paulozky quote in question is this part:
          “Un primer mérito del filme es que muestra que hay distintos tipos de violencia. Hay una violencia manifiesta, pero hay otras formas, contenidas, escondidas en el cinismo, la hipocresía moral, la denigración, que a veces hacen del fósforo provocador del estallido”, explica. Y añade: “La película atrae porque los episodios funcionan como los cuentos infantiles, que en la exageración de la crueldad de sus personajes permiten dar forma a los fantasmas más primitivos. ¿No son acaso crueles ‘Caperucita y el lobo’ o ‘Hansel y Gretel’?”
          I can get the gist of it based on my knowledge of French, but unfortunately I speak practically no Spanish, so I'm a little wary of falling for false friends ;) Daß Wölf 12:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7 the link to macho culture -- you could pipe to Machismo unless something more specific is intended Daß Wölf 02:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8 "According to the film's producer Pedro Almodóvar, the film was not meant to be pro-vigilantism, saying the catharsis is only used to stimulate the action." -- suggest writing this without indirect speech, e.g. "...pro-vigilantism; the catharsis was only used..." Daß Wölf 02:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9 es:gigantografía -- Foreign language Wikipedias shouldn't be directly linked in prose. If the concept meets WP:N, the {{ill}} template or something similar can be used, for instance: gigantografía [es]. Daß Wölf 02:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10 I'm guessing that all the "$" amounts refer to US dollars. Since the Argentine peso also uses the $ symbol, it's necessary to specify "US$" or "AR$" where it might be ambiguous. Daß Wölf 02:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, I think this clears up all ambiguity. Only one thing: per MOS:CURRENCY, "Do not place a currency symbol after the accompanying numeric figures (e.g. 123$, 123£, 123€) unless that is the normal convention for that symbol when writing in English: smaller British coins include 1p, 2p, and 5p denominations." Daß Wölf 12:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11 "The Argentine film industry only started to register film box offices through reliable data by 1997" -- this sounds a little clunky Daß Wölf 02:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12 Javier Juliá or Javier Julia -- the article should be consistent. Daß Wölf 02:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Placing the article on hold for now. Daß Wölf 02:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a few days. Pinging the nominator @Gabriel Yuji:. Daß Wölf 07:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Daß I have done a few minor edits, but am reluctant to spend more time without knowing for sure that you would like me to continue. If you do, ping me and I will return tomorrow. I am brushing up on my español. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04
23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this pinged you correctly so I am trying again Daß Wölf Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jenhawk777: Thanks for taking up the review! I'm not sure if this amount of work is something reviewers are expected to do on their own, so I hope I'm not wasting your time in that regard, but your edits are definitely very much appreciated :D (BTW it looks like both of your pings went out OK.) Daß Wölf 21:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(BTW it looks like both of your pings went out OK.) Daß Wölf Ha ha! So I pinged you twice! I'm sorry! This review looks like all the reviews I've participated in - except one that was a quick fail and filled with acrimony - thank goodness this isn't that! Your comments are reasonable and accurate in my view. I am willing to do the work. I am waiting on two other GAN's right now just twiddling my thumbs (what is that anyway?!) so I have the time. It's an interesting article - now I want to see the film! It seems plenty noteworthy and worth the trouble. It's entirely up to you of course as the reviewer but I am certainly willing to bring this one in with you. I'll start back later tonight. If you have more comments, just post them and I will get to them one at a time. What about #6 above? What is your decision? I will do whatever you decide. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did something (#6). These few are done now. So far, every reference I have checked has been good too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, Daß Wölf I haven't heard back. You haven't dropped being the reviewer have you? I just stepped in as the "nominee" to do the work you saw and asked for. I can't do both! I need you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been absolutely swamped with work this week. I'll be getting to the comments in the next few hours. Again, thanks for doing this! Daß Wölf 12:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments[edit]

  1. Per WP:V, all quotes should be immediately followed by citations. This is just cosmetic at this point I think, I added a citation in one sentence that was ambiguous (containing a quote in the middle and multiple citations at the end). Daß Wölf 14:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I did spot checks on some English-language refs and so far it checks out, assuming AGF on the rest. Daß Wölf 14:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Regarding OR, all the sentences in the body have citations and spot checks show the claims are cited, so the only possibility is in the lead. I see you've brought that up already above and I don't see anything to add here. The rest of the prose looks good to me, I don't think it requires further copyediting. Daß Wölf 14:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: I think that's all from me at this point :) Again, sorry for not getting in touch sooner, I was completely swamped IRL. Daß Wölf 14:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • DaßWölf. Sorry it took so long to get back, one of my GA's came back and needed attention. I have reworded the two unattributed quotes so that they are parphrases instead because I had no way to locate the quotes, and because you are 100% correct: all quotes must be attributed. They are now gone as quotes but restated as - hopefully - relatively equivalent statements.
  • That's it then I guess! If you're done, then I am too! I support your assessment of this article: I would pass it if I were the reviewer. I would pass you too! See you around again some time! Happy editing! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jenhawk777: You missed my MOS:CURRENCY comment above, but no worries, I fixed it myself, so that's it! :D Thank you so much for helping out given that it wasn't your nom :) and thanks also to Gabriel Yuji for his work on getting the article up to GA(N) level! Daß Wölf 10:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OOPS!! Sorry! Glad you took care of it! And congrats to all. This is good for the encyclopedia! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hey. I was very busy in real life, so thank you both Daß Wölf and Jenhawk777. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. Glad I could help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wild_Tales_(film)&oldid=1207905868"