Talk:4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Gabriel Yuji (talk · contribs) 00:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, I'll start this review as soon as possible. Sorry for the time you had to wait. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Partially based on WP:FILMLEAD and partially based on the article's structure itself I'd say the Cannes mention in the second sentence is kind of out of nowhere. I mean, wouldn't be more logical to mention it in the last paragraph that discusses the reception?
  • Actually I'd group the first and second paragraph as they discuss plot, cast and production; and the third and fourth as they talk about the release and reception. Not really a major problem at all, and maybe a matter of stylistic preferences only, but I recommend this because short paragraphs are somewhat discouraged in good articles.
Plot
  • Nothing to say. Everything seems fine.
Historical background
  • "continued to fall aside from one year after"; I'm not really sure (English is not my native language) but "fall aside" seems really informal (in fact it's not frequently used in Wikipedia if you do a search). I'd also remove the "from" (as I think a "from" implies a "to").
  • Just to avoid the repetition of "abortion" you could replace it with other words such as "procedure" (in the first paragraph there's three following sentences that use the word). It's not really a problem, but some say word repetition is not good prose, and in this case there'll be no ambiguity because the paragraph is about it (in the plot, it's kind of difficult to argue this).
  • Who is Gradea? You could mention her full name and her profession in the first mention - as you did with "Author Dominique Nasta".
Development
  • "Though he had heard it from a friend 15 years ago, the incident occurred five years before that, in 1987" – it will be outdated soon; it's preferable to use an actual date rather than having someone to update every year (the same goes for "more than 15 years later")
    • Clarified. 15 years before the film. The number 15 will never be outdated. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film was produced on budget of under €600,000" – should it be "on a budget"?
Casting
  • "Mungiu viewed auditions for many young women for the two protagonists"; should "of" be used?
Filming
  • "The Mr. Bebe character was also given a red Dacia car" – although the context implies it's an old brand, the sentence by itself is quite vague; you could something like "Dacia car, popular on the period" (I'm assuming it) or something that gives a little context for the reader
  • Score could be linked in its first mention here instead of in "Themes and interpretations"
Themes and interpretations
  • WP:DUPLINK of Decree 770 and Nicolae Ceaușescu, as they are already linked in "Historical background"
  • "In the bartering scenes, corporate goods common west of the Iron Curtain were prohibited in Romania and were viewed as luxuries" – I think there are missing words here to link the idea to the film and a preposition may be useful; I'd rewrite as "The bartering scenes depicts how corporate goods common in the west of the Iron Curtain were prohibited in Romania and were viewed as luxuries
    • Adjusted, but "west of the" is proper English Ribbet32 (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Style
  • For consistency, I think you should choose to mention or not to mention someone's affiliation i.e. you use "British Film Institute writer Ben Walters", "The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw", "The Independent critic Jonathan Romney" but then we got "Journalist Brian Gibson" (and no mention to Vue Weekly), and the same goes for Debruge, Boone, Wissot...
    • It doesn't hurt to have some variation. Vue Weekly isn't as familiar to people outside Alberta as The Guardian and BFI are to people everywhere, as well. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say "academic Ileana Jitaru identified as including desaturated greys, blues and greens"; the source says, "4 months 3 weeks and 2 days is designed in desaturated shades of grey, blue, red and green" – why red was omitted?
  • "Aside from reflecting the length of the fictional pregnancy, the 4-3-2 form of the title creates the impression of rushed countdown reinforcing the thriller genre aspects" – as everything else is attributed to someone in the article's body, I think the same should apply here
Release
  • None of the given sources ([1], [2]) back up the Avram's documentary name 1 Month with 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days, although they support the existence of a tour documentary by Avram and everything else
    • Scroll up slightly, and see ref 63 (inside note 2). Ribbet32 (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • So it should be added inline in the sentence. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Says who? Ribbet32 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hm... Any basic Wikipedia guideline? WP:PROVEIT and WP:INTEGRITY. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry if that was rude. But it meets both those guidelines, as citations are provided, and I think they are accessible. You click on one note (or just hover over it), and then one ref (or just hover over it). Ribbet32 (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Box office
  • "It made $1,198,208 in North America and $8,642,130 in other territories" – I understand that Box Office Mojo prioritizes US figures but I think the article shouldn't do the same. Romania should be the main focus here.
    • The first para gives the main focus to Romania (and France, where it premiered). (As an aside, North America is more than the US) Ribbet32 (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I saw this, but I think gross figures are more clear than admissions. The "Foreign" section gives what you need. (I know that, just missed it; it's more than US and Canada too) Gabriel Yuji (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd agree, but admissions seem to be more commonly counted in Europe. Gross figures are hard to come by Ribbet32 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception
  • I wonder about your criteria of not adding names in the "Best of 2007 rankings" table. I mean, there are people listed in the given source (ex. Chicago Tribune's Michael Phillips, Hollywood Reporter's Kirk Honeycutt and Sheri Linden) that don't appear in the article's table. If it was to keep it shorter I'd say to remove the lowest-position rankings. (In the 2008 list you only omitted Empire presumably because it did not ranked the films, and although I'm not sure if this is a valid criteria, it's still a criteria.)
    • Not my doing if lists were left out. I merely beautified them. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could also add something to sum up the tables' information in prose i.e on how many author's/media's list it appeared on each year. It would be a great way of exemplifying what's on "The film received an enthusiastic response from critics" or maybe it could fit in the last paragraph if added prior the decade's listing.
  • Duplink of Peter Bradshaw, The Guardian, The Independent, already linked in "Style"
  • For consistency, you should mention Jean-Baptiste Morain was the writer for Les Inrockuptibles (probably you just missed this one, as you don't cite him in the reference itself)
  • Although it's a news via AFP, I'm not sure SAWF News is a reliable source. Furthermore, it seems a literal copy of SBS, so I think it's useless anyway. We then have a problem with the opening sentence of the paragraph: "Some sources view the film as indicative of a broader renaissance in Romanian cinema in the 2000s". However, I think it's can be easily resolved as you already have Gradea and Pop with sources that have "new wave" on its title.
    • Replaced. SAWF link was not my doing. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could link Palme d'Or here and remove its link in the subsequent appearance in "Accolades"
Abortion debate
  • "reviewer Maureen Medved judged 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days to approximate a horror film" – I'm not really sure on this, but it sounds strange to me (and I did some Google searchs with the term); "judged 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days to be similar to", or "to remind a", wouldn't be better options?
  • Duplink of Time magazine
    • Done 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Just out of curiosity, no official Mungiu's position? I'd say he maybe not expressed it, as he said the abortion was not the focus of the film and that there is no discussion at all in his country, but didn't you find nothing on it?
Accolades
  • Duplink of 2007 Cannes Film Festival, already linked in "Filming"
    • Sufficient space between the two sections to justify. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • In the rest of the article you use "Ceaușescu"; why to use "Ceausescu" here?
References
  • You could add this link to ref #14 (Cineaste); and why not add it "Bibliography" and apply the harvcite style to avoid repetition (btw, #14 and #99 cite exactly the same page)?
    • Fixed duplicate link. Cineaste is a paper ref. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #23 (ABC.net.au) is dead
  • The same question goes for Jitaru's ref; why don't you add it to "Bibliography" to simplify?
    • Bibliography means books, as is my understanding. Not sure about this. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing accessdate for ref #74 (the Corliss)
  • Missing page for ref #82
    • Didn't have page numbers, but the reader can look up films alphabetically Ribbet32 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except for the ones highlighted on their respective sections I found no problems with sources attribution; for the record, I spot checked some references that made impressive statements or that may be controversial (in my opinion of course), namely ref #2 (SBS), ref #11 (Nasta), Gradea (#13, #18 and #46), "Not Just an Abortion Film" (refs #14, #31, #34, #99 and #100), ref #27 (IndieWire), ref #59 (Reuters), ref #62 ("Just don't mention Dracula"), ref #64 (Emanuellevy.com), refs #75 and #93 (on Oscar controversy), ref #83 (BBC's 100 best), and ref #86
    • I don't know what you're suggesting, but Wikipedia can't shy from controversy, and opinions are not in "Wikipedia's voice". Ribbet32 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not suggesting anything. I feel I expressed myself bad. I just said I didn't check all refs, and my criteria to spot check (a common practice on FAs, peer reviews, etc.) was if it grabbed my attention as something likely to be challenged (WP:GA?, 2b). I mean, it is just a regular statement that it screened at the 2007 Toronto International Film Festival (#ref 61), but it's an interesting affirmation that it attracted long queues (#62). Just it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know German, but just out of curiosity I checked their FA and I've found this article that is used several times there. I don't if it will bring new content for you, but it maybe worth checking at least. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked at it now and then long ago and picked up some ideas from it. Didn't translate anything from it or use any of its sources, tho Ribbet32 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography
  • You cite Andreescu's "The Changing Face", but in the Google Book version there is no such chapter; the chapters whose names are more close to it are "Transitions and the Changing Face of the Social Authority" and "The Changing Face of the Sacrificial Romanian Woman – did you miss some words in the title or is it a difference in edition/version?
  • You could add this link Gradea's reference
  • You could add this link to Nasta's "Contemporary Romanian auteurs"
Conclusion

Overall, it's a very good article, well-written, well-sourced, with a good use of images and tables. I have only minor concerns, and Icould only find few problems (if they can be called problems at all; maybe they are only nitpicks of mine). I'll put this on hold. When you do your reply, ping me. Feel free to disagree, and you can choose if you want to respond below each point or below this closing commentary. Thanks for the wait, Ribbet32. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabriel Yuji: I think I've gone through all important concerns by now. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Almost there. I'd insist on the Dacia stuff, on summarizing tables in prose, on dead links, and about Andreescu's reference. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabriel Yuji: I believe that should all be resolved Ribbet32 (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ribbet32: Passed. Still had the question of Cineaste and Jitaru's formatting, and adding links when possible to your bibliography, but these are not a WP:GA? point at all. Good job! Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:4_Months,_3_Weeks_and_2_Days/GA1&oldid=816244842"