Talk:Hounds (film)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Nominator: 00:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Averageuntitleduser (talk · contribs) 22:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds fun, I'll be taking this. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the wait, the review is underway and will be finished tomorrow! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to it! Mooonswimmer 04:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Well-written
Mostly nitpicks here. I am very intrigued by the plot summary; this just oozes tension. As well, the distinction of the "Themes" section is nice, and I like its structure.
 * In the cast section, could you add "as [character name]" after each actor? Variety gives a few of these but not all, though this is okay, since it can presumably be cited to the end credits.
 * Use "Elaid" or "Elaïd" consistently.
 * Use "non-professional" or "nonprofessional" consistently.
 * Very minor, but chose to and choose to are redundant.
 * a real abduction — very minor, I'd just leave this at "an abduction".
 * when they did not proceed as intended — could this be elaborated? If not, perhaps "he was not satisfied with" would be a more clear replacement.
 * The storyline evolved during filming and editing, leading to significant rewrites. — I feel this would better placed before the previous sentence, which seems to expand upon it.
 * Matter of fact, after swapping these two sentences, could you insert them both after Hounds was shot in Casablanca. It would centralize all the comments about the filming and would segue nicely into the other difficulties.
 * a deeply immersive, documentary-style camera for this film — strictly speaking, "deeply immersive" is attributed to Berrada, but how about this to be safe: "a documentary-style camera, which she described as 'deeply immersive', for this film."
 * Very minor, but per MOS:POSS, add another "s" to actors' and characters' or rearrange the sentences.
 * neo-realism — "Italian neorealism" seems a good link.
 * "real" — I think there are some good replacements that wouldn't need quotes to make sense, like "rightful".
 * In the "Awards and nominations" section, could you join the two sentences about the Cannes Film Festival? At that point, it would be best to fold in the Lumières Award sentence.
 * This is really subtle, but two opinions in the "Reception" section are stated in WikiVoice and should be attributed. For example, praises the film for its use of gallows humor and ability to maintain tension could be rephrased as "praises the film for its use of gallows humor and what she saw as an ability to maintain tension". The other spot to fix is: praised the film for its effective portrayal of events over the course of one night.
 * I suggest removing the "Critical response" subsection.

Verifiable with no original research
Sources generally seem reliable. Of the sources that could have reliability issues (Les Ecos, Le360, Arri, L'Opinion), they are using Lazraq or Berrada's words or seem inconspicuous enough for what they cite. The highest legitamite Earwig score is a solid 25%. The one quote from Lazraq is fairly large but not a deal-breaker. As well, the spot-check generally showed some nice paraphrasing.
 * Benlarbi, Pelloquet, Myczkowski, P.R2B, and the production companies should be sourced in the article or removed from the infobox.
 * Be sure to add a citation for the quote.
 * I have a few source suggestions for the "Awards and nominations" section. I would replace them myself, but I figure it would be best to run them by you. The Haifa International Film Festival source could be replaced by this convenient article from The Jerusalem Post via PressReader. British Cinematographer is probably a fine publication, but I'd feel better using a primary source. For the Marrakech International Film Festival, Hespress could be replaced with this article from Screen Daily, which seems a bit more established.

Spot-check

 * Looks good.
 * Looks good.
 * The connection seems solid.
 * Looks good. But for the second cite, though I like the liberties taken with the wording of the translation, consider changing up the sentence structure.
 * Looks good.
 * Looks good.
 * Looks good.
 * Looks good.
 * Looks good.
 * Looks good.
 * Looks good.
 * Looks good.
 * Looks good.
 * Looks good.
 * Looks good.
 * Looks good.

Broad in its coverage
Generally, I think there's enough info about the production, themes, and awards. This CNC article treads a lot of the same ground about the nonprofessional cast. The last visible question in this Le Monde interview discusses the father-son dynamic in much the same way as the "Themes" section, and if it's a 4-minute read, there's likely little other content. Admittedly, I'm very curious about this L'Humanité interview, but on top of being paywalled, I doubt it would radically alter my thoughts about the article's breadth.
 * You may have saw this coming; the production, themes, awards, and reception should be summarized in the lead.
 * This Screen Daily article describes the film's theatrical run in North America, which you should consider mentioning in the article. The article's vague on details, but I think it's also worth mentioning that the film had theatrical runs in Italy and Australia.
 * Hmm... I think the "Reception" section could be fleshed out a tad. Some of the unused reviews are blurb-y or mainly plot summaries, which I don't fault you for avoiding. As well, and I'm noticing a theme, many of the French ones are paywalled. Still, there are a number of reviews from prominent publications that are fairly substantial, see these from Screen Daily, Sight and Sound, The Irish Times, and Little White Lies (ooh, a more critical one). Out of these four, I'd recommend glossing two of them within the article. And hey, if one of them seems to repeat another review already present in the article, you can always say something along the lines of: "[x] expressed a similar sentiment".

Neutral
No issues here, just the one minor prose comment above. Opinions are attributed and seem balanced in terms of due weight.

Stable
No recent content disputes or edit wars.

Illustrated
The poster has a proper fair use rationale. I couldn't find any free images of the actors, the set, or any film festivals, so the article seems to cover its bases.

Summary
Apologies for being the speed of a sloth, admittedly, there was a painfully long internet outage on my end. But anyways, I hope this is enough to work on before I finish up my comments. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Howdy just letting you know that I've finished my comments. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time and diligence! I'll be implementing the necessary changes soon. Mooonswimmer 12:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello @Averageuntitleduser, I've implemented practically all of your suggestions. When it comes to "Benlarbi, Pelloquet, Myczkowski, P.R2B, and the production companies should be sourced in the article or removed from the infobox," I could just add the citations to the infobox, correct? Mooonswimmer 15:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ooh, lovely work! And actually, you are right. Per MOS:INFOBOXREF, adding citations to the infobox is acceptable. But do consider whether you could integrate these paramaters into the article, even if the sources only allow for a namecheck. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please let me know if my addition to the "Development" subsection works. Mooonswimmer 16:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks great! Thank you for going out of your way to expand the lead and reception, and the other theatrical runs were nice finds! Happy to pass this. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)