Template:Did you know nominations/Crulic: The Path to Beyond

Crulic: The Path to Beyond
Created/expanded by Smetanahue (talk). Self nom at 18:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ... that Crulic: The Path to Beyond, released in 2011, was the first Romanian animated feature film in two decades?


 * Symbol question.svg Question: is the film mostly animated? As far as I am reading, this is a documentary film with animated techniques. The topic discusses a real-life man who starved himself and then was denied medical care, which contributed to his death. This article is long enough, though. --George Ho (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's entirely animated except briefly at the very end. I'll make an edit to clarify this. Smetanahue (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I see that you have clarified this. Thanks. The Critical Reception section has two quoted passages from the same person. The whole section needs paraphrasing (or some trimming and copy editing), and it also needs more reviews from different people with such paraphrase. Nevertheless, I wonder if doing nothing to it would affect this article's DYK nomination. --George Ho (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Trimmed the quotation in the reception section. I'm reluctant to add more festival reviews, as they won't be very representative when the film eventually is released in English-speaking countries. It would be nice to have coverage of the Romanian reception, but I don't know that language. But as you said, that shouldn't be a problem for DYK, it's more of a GA issue. Smetanahue (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Well... You don't have to find Romanian-language reviews if you don't understand it. You can try other English ones, such as NY Times and LA Times and any other, to expand. (See WP:DYKSG) As for the Variety magazine review, I think more rephrasing can do if other reviews are found. By the way, I have wikified "Romania" as a link to Cinema of Romania. You can add "documentary" prior to the bolded title, as it helps readers understand it is a documentary film. Without "documentary", this original hook could look good for April Fools' Day, but you would wait for no more than 10 months to see this hook show up. --George Ho (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * NY Times etc haven't reviewed the film; all English-language reviews at this point are from festival screenings, which are quite special occasions. There just isn't much relevant critical reception in English. It's not quite a documentary, a docudrama perhaps. The sources vary in how they label it so I didn't want to use anything definite in the article. What do you mean with April Fools' Day? Smetanahue (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Recent additions/2012/April can explain how hooks look good for April Fools. --George Ho (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this is what you're alluding to, but I changed the syntax slightly to avoid a theoretically possible although practically unlikely misreading. Smetanahue (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Slant review, WSWS review, SF Gate review, and other reviews found on Google can help expand Reception section. Why not adding "docudrama" before the title? --George Ho (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Added a comment from a Polish newspaper. I have not seen any source label it a docudrama, that was my own approximate label. Whenever the genre is ambiguous the convention is to leave it out and just explain the film's story. I also think it would look unpleasing to explain twice in the same sentence that it is a movie. Smetanahue (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I'm reading FN 2: according to article, the Romanian Consul was either "recalled" or fired by the President; did the Consul actually resign? How was the total summed into 304,000 euro? I don't see a combined budget anywhere, and I added up fundings, which may or may not be more than 304k. Also, FN 5 explains all festivals except ones in Mexico City and Gdynia. I wonder if correction is needed. Also, I see that the article needs some careful copyediting, even if minor, such as missing words of conjunction, like "and" or "but". Nevertheless, the rest of sources have verified all statements, even if I don't understand Polish yet used the "find" (Ctrl+F) tool for names. --George Ho (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Smetanahue (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, I used WebCite to archive fn 9 and 10, just in case. --George Ho (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm giving this hook a good faith as much as this article. Well-cited and well-written. If this hook is not meant for April Fools' Day, if expansion of Reception section is not needed, and if there are no objections, then I will give this hook a good to go for now. --George Ho (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)