Talk:Mango Yellow/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 22:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. It's a real shame you've had to wait so long. J Milburn (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Who plays Isaac?
 * "Wellington is put off by the funeral of the recently died owner." Presumably you mean the owner of the hotel? Is that character's death part of the plot, or does the funeral just distract the characters?
 * "running into Kika" He hits her in his car then has sex with her?
 * "Deborah Young of Variety opined, "Mango yellow is both the jaundiced shade of their broken dreams and, ..., the color is of nonconformity and feeling alive."" This doesn't make sense
 * " O Estado de S. Paulo said Texas Hotel is "a kind of 'privileged test' of Mango Yellow",[13] while TV Guide described the feature film as being an "expanded version of his 1999 short film Hotel Texas"." Avoid personifying publications- it is writers for these publications who said these things
 * "Despite critical praise, the film was moderately received by Brazilian audiences." I don't follow
 * " representing only the twelfth largest audience for a domestic film in 2003." Why "only"? Surely that's a good result?
 * "with Netto liking that it was "not decorative" and "spare"." I don't follow

Ok, these are just some initial comments- more substantive comments will follow. J Milburn (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks,, for taking your time to review and copyediting it. It's very appreciated. I hopefully have clarified/fixed the issues you've raised. Waiting for more :) Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, more substantive comments:


 * Currently, the article doesn't seem to be structured in the most logical way. I don't really see why accolades and critical reception are subsections of release; perhaps it would be best to "promote" them to full sections. I'd then order the article something like this: Background and production // Plot // Cast // Release // Themes // Critical reception // Accolades (I'm not quite sure where to put "Themes", but there you go).
 * Some of the stuff in Themes (that is, the material relating to inspiration and intention) probably belongs in Background and production.
 * There's nothing about home media release- was it released on DVD?
 * Why is it an LGBT film? Do you have a source for that?

Once these bits have been done, I'll take another look through the article. J Milburn (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The structure is following MOS:FILM. MOS:FILM#Release says, "A key part of the film's Wikipedia article should be about its release and how it was received." The reception (which include both critics and accolades) is somewhat subordinate to the release. I can separate "Accolades" and "Critical reception" from "Release", though. Some FAS put reception under release, (Blade Runner, Prometheus (2012 film)) others the opposite (Fuck (film), Mother India), and others pair up them (Gemini (2002 Tamil film), Transformers (film)). I guess it's more a matter of style.
 * Well, I think it's okay; I'm focusing on de facto production i.e. filming and budget, while "Themes" is for ideas.
 * Hm... there's on "Release".
 * Well, it has a main gay character so it's a LBGT-related film. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hm,, are you still there? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry- this is on my to-do list, but my to-do list is pretty long. I'll definitely get to this soon. J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm left feeling that the lead doesn't really summarise the plot as well as it could.
 * Usually, in the lead the plot is only a summary somewhat like in an advertising to not give details/spoilers, unless these are the focus of some important commentary.
 * "Cavalli's scene in which he shows her vagina materializes one of the first ideas Assis had to the film.[3]" I'm not sure what this is saying
 * The first idea that Assis had for the film was this one (a waitress showing her vagina) and that was materialized by Cavalli's scene. I've tried to rewrite it. May be you can help? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Couto wrote that the "gratuitous series of aberrations" presented in Texas Hotel was turned into an "articulate narrative and full of meaning".[9]" I don't follow.
 * Well, in rough words, he meant to say that the sparse and random characters [the "gratuitous series of aberrations"] became a cohesive narrative. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "The first idea he had" Who is the "he" here?
 * Assis. Added. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "was to include the pubis of a waitress he had met" Could this be rephrased?
 * Suggestion? What exactly is the problem? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Dab needed on Época
 * Done by a bot. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This is coming together well- the release section is generally very good, though there are parts elsewhere in the article which could be smoothed a little. J Milburn (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, sorry for the delay, . I was on vacation and didn't noticed it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I think this review has been going on long enough. While I don't think the article is perfect, I think a lot of that comes down to a disagreement over structure which, of course, isn't part of the GA criteria. The writing and sourcing are solid, and the article contains a good amount of information, answering the key questions. I'm happy that it meets the GA criteria, so I am going to go ahead and promote at this time. Good work. J Milburn (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)