Talk:Venezuelan cinema in the 1890s/GA1

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

Reviewer: Maplestrip (talk · contribs) 13:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article in the coming days. Absolutely loving it already! Will give suggestions for improvements and will fill out the template below as I go through the page and its sources. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments, questions, and suggestions
Most of these will probably be either minor suggestions or questions that came to me while reading the page, unless I indicate differently. Don't worry if this list gets long, I like being thorough I'll be clear if one of these points might be an issue for GA class.
 * The Paulo Antonio Paranaguá-quote, "another foreign import", seems to refer to South America as a whole. It is not clear if Paranaguá is Venezual or, for example, Brazilian. Unless I am missing something, I think it should be made clear that this paragraph is about South America as a whole rather than Venezuela specifically.
 * ✅ Kingsif (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Moreover, I am not 100% sure if "one with Venezuelans only as the viewers, the other with them being viewed" and "the desire for modernity" are accurate abbreviations of the highly academic source cited here. As for the former, the book says that "the appearance and diffusion of the cinema in Latin America followed the patterns of neo-colonial dependency typical of the region's position [globally]," talking a great deal about imperialism. Though the viewer/viewed dichotomy feels like a good way to sum that up, it also feels like an interpretation. As for "modernity", I am not entirely sure which line to look at for this one. I think the book talks more about what "is" rather than about what humans "desire". Regardless, this may be covered well enough by the "Memorias de Venezuela"-source too.None of these necessarily require action, but I think looking at it might allow us to more accurately match the source we draw from.
 * ✅ Kingsif (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The story of Mèndez bringing the Vitascope from New York to Maracaibo is actually told on page 45, not 42-43. There's more useful material in this source too, like.
 * There's more details on Luis Manuel Méndez in his article - would some of this be useful here? If so, would separating the introduction and reception parts into different sections be warranted? Kingsif (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article as a whole, I think splitting that section is warranted, yes, though not necessary for GA. I would recommend to split paragraph "Reviews in contemporary newspaper ..." onwards into a section titled something like "Contemporary reception". This would also give you the opportunity to move the line about affordability up into the "Introduction" section. It feels out of place where it is, and it is more relevant to the logistics of the introduction of film in the region. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The Monroe Doctrine is actually discussed on page 46.
 * The Issuu viewer page numbers and article pages don't line up, I've gone with the article pages, would it be better to have the viewer ones? Kingsif (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, that would explain that. I didn't spot any article page numbers, but if they are in there then we should use those.


 * People like Michelle Leigh Farrell, Stephen M. Hart, Azuaga García, and Yolanda Sueiro Villanueva are quoted without any clarity on who they are or why their knowledge of this topic matters. Suggested changes: "Michelle Leigh Farrell of Georgetown University", "author Stephen M. Hart", "Azuaga García of the Universitat de Valencia", etc.
 * ✅ these and Suiero Villanueva, I'll add to the other names as I see them Kingsif (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I would change "One review of the first Venezuelan films also reports ..." as follows: (more clarity one what the original source is).
 * ✅ (as El Cronista) Kingsif (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I think "practically neglecting the limitations of the silent and black and white image" could be alternatively translated to "practically ignoring ...", which sounds more positive.
 * ✅ Kingsif (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * (Will continue this type of commenting later. So far it is very very good!) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yes, any work we can do to more accurately reflect sources without sounding inaccessibly academic, please. Kingsif (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Do address what you can from the above list, if you have the time. I try to minimize the amount of editing I do on the article myself, save for some copy-editing. Either way, I'll continue adding notes below :) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 20:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The previous section states that a film circuit was established in Caracas in 1899, but the 'National films' list lists Caracas films from 1897. Doesn't that mean the film circuit already existed in '97?
 * I've added 'group' after film circuit, I think this covers it - it seems the film circuit was a more formal collective of venues that would show films Kingsif (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that works. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You must cite the claim made under the image "Boys enjoying a swim in Lake Maracaibo, ..."
 * ✅, with caption adapted to the Azuaga García comment specifically Kingsif (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Very nice :) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * There is an option to change the table as follows: Remove the "cast" column, add the one cast credit to the "notes" column, and create a new column "city" to track whether the film originates from Maracaibo or Caracas. Current situation is fine too, but this might look nicer.
 * ✅, I think? Kingsif (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this looks better, yes. Might be a personal preference, but an almost entirely empty column just doesn't work for me :p ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Should the list use the word "actualité" rather than "documentary" to describe these early films? I don't know.
 * ✅ for all but the political fight, which from the source description sounds almost news reel-y Kingsif (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Tom Gunning described Latin American cinema as "cinema of attractions". This term might work better than "spectacle" in this article, but either works.
 * Very sadly, Cinema of attractions does not have a page. I should probably make one. Kingsif (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally I would just use a pipe-link, "cinema of attractions". ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised this is not mentioned in the "Introduction and reception" section.
 * ✅ Kingsif (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The cost of being at a screening in this period (between 1 and 20 bolívares) is unsourced. This should be sourced before the article can be promoted.
 * ✅ Kingsif (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I like the timeline table a lot. I have no suggestions for improving it. I will fill out the table above shortly. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 20:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've responded above, and made some edits in line with suggestions - are they what you were thinking of? Kingsif (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything is looking very good. The issue that kept me from promoting it immediately is resolved, so I will be promoting the article to GA status right now. Of course, you can still continue improving the article further, as always. I hope my comments and perspectives were useful. Thank you, Kingsif, for writing such an absolutely awesome article! I very much enjoyed reading this one and going through the sources :) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Your comments have been very useful, actually, so thanks. Kingsif (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)