Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:46, 6 July 2020

Little Women (2019 film) is currently a Film good article nominee. Nominated by KyleJoan at 14:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Adaptation of the 1868 novel?

"Little Women is an upcoming American coming-of-age period drama film written and directed by Greta Gerwig. It is the eighth film adaptation of the 1868 novel of the same name by Louisa May Alcott." Isn't it an adaptation of this novel's sequels, at least partly? The article says the movie focuses on the girls' young adult lives, which suggests it isn't really an adaptation of Little Women, but is an adaptation of the sequels. The cast also list includes the character Friedrich Bhaer, who doesn't appear at all in the 1868 novel, but does appear in the sequels. --193.190.253.144 (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

"Top ten lists" section

Re edit made 19 December 2019.
Per WP:FILMCRITICLIST: "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus. With a film largely overlooked for awards, a prose summary of it appearing on such lists may be appropriate; likewise with films nominated for awards yet appearing on few such lists." Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 01:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Plot

Why does the plot having nothing on Beth March? Atrocious, isn't it? VedantTalk 17:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

She was mentioned there a couple weeks ago, but you're free to add her to the plot as long as you stay under 700 words. Never mind, didn't realize someone purposely removed her. I restored a previous summary. QueerFilmNerd 19:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Puff

I'm dropping the stars because it's not that serious. That aside, you keep referencing WP:PUFF, an essay on notability. How do the verbs "lauded" and "acclaimed" exaggerate the notability of the article subject? KyleJoan 07:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

On your own user page you name this film as one of your most "favourite films" - I suggest that you might be struggling with NPOV here? However much you liked the film, the article should always describe it using neutral, encyclopaedic language. A reviewer has written that the film's writing was "magnificent", so the correct approach is for the article to say that the reviewer described the writing as "magnificent". The cited word in quotes is doing the work here, and all you achieve by trying to edit the neutral wording of the encyclopaedia to replace "described" with "lauded" and "acclaimed" is to undermine the perceived neutrality of the article. The fact that you are prepared to edit war over such small improvements in the language - and resort to posting warnings on my page despite my having let the matter drop twice now - must raise concern that you are way too invested in this film to judge the quality of this article. IMO it isn't well written and isn't ready for GA. MapReader (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

If you believe I might be struggling with NPOV, then report me to WP:ANI. If not, stick to content. . . . "lauded" and "acclaimed" is to undermine the perceived neutrality of the article . . . I believe it is perfectly neutral to state that her writing was lauded as magnificent. You also never answered my question about how WP:PUFF applies here. We can open an RfC to resolve this if you'd like. KyleJoan 08:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

You seem obsessed with warnings and reports. I am more interested in improving the encyclopaedia. You might find it useful to have a look at WP:SAID which underlines the importance of using neutral terminology in sentences along the lines of "X said..." MapReader (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

And you seem obsessed with not answering how WP:PUFF applies here. WP:SAID states: Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. Yes, "laud" is a loaded term, but I believe a greatly complimentary adjective such as "magnificent" warrants it. If you still disagree, we can still open an RfC or you can take your own advice and think about how you are prepared to edit war over such small improvements in the language. KyleJoan 08:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for conceding that it is a loaded term. Editors are supposed to avoid loaded terms; we're not here to argue whether or not loaded terms might be justified. As I said before, the stated opinion that the writing was "magnificent" is job done as far as neutrally reporting the facts is concerned. I will let you make the necessary edit; if you really do intend to take this through to GA you will need to address the issue then, but better sooner. Kind regards MapReader (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The MOS guideline you provided states that loaded terms require extra care, not that they should not ever be invoked, therefore, I believe that no issue needs addressing. Regards to you as well! KyleJoan 08:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Take some time to think it over. There really is nothing wrong with described the writing as "magnificent" . MapReader (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like you're not over it. I'm also still waiting to hear how WP:PUFF applies here. Would you like to open an RfC to definitively resolve this? If you'd like, we can also talk about how you misrepresented a review with a score of two-and-a-half out of four by paraphrasing a quote to fit your narrative. KyleJoan 08:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

I am unable to undertake the GA review of this article, having already made substantive edits to it, but am concerned that the article is being nominated because the nominating editor likes the film, rather than this being a good candidate for WP:GA. When I found the article it would in that state have merited a Quick Fail.

Subsequent to the nomination I have already taken time to work through most of the article making numerous corrections to grammar and phrasing, punctuation, and the format of quotations.

Nevertheless, in my view the Production sub-sections of the article are still rather cursory, more characteristic of Start Class, and need additional research to fill out (or confirm the absence of) further detail. The plot section is not well written, and would benefit from a complete re-write. The Reception section contains only positive comments, and my attempt to include one short extract from a less complimentary review was entirely deleted by the nominating editor. The article contains unnecessarily loaded terms and my attempts to replace them with more neutral and perfectly acceptable encyclopaedic terms have also been reverted by the nominating editor.

The film was released relatively recently (indeed, its launch is awaited in some territories because of the Coronavirus pandemic) and I would suggest that it is too early to consider for GA, given the amount of work still needed to get beyond start class material and to ensure that the article is written from an NPOV. MapReader (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Any editor would see that most of your recent contributions to the article were more decorative than substantive. For example, you modified this sentence (In April 2020, Deadline Hollywood calculated the net profit of the film to be $56 million, when factoring together all expenses and revenues.) into this sentence (In April 2020, Deadline Hollywood calculated its net profit to be $56 million.) Substantive, eh?

The 'San Francisco Chronicle' review you provided has been added back into the article with a more accurate summary since your original summary was deeply misleading. If you disagree with this change, I would love nothing more than to conduct an RfC to see which of our two summaries better represents the review.

On the subject of NPOV, you failed to explain the relevance of an essay you referenced (i.e., WP:PUFF) in the preceding discussion. You also failed to reference a guideline that states that loaded terms must never be invoked in an article.

All of that said, thank you for all of your assistance in getting this article GA ready! KyleJoan 09:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees on review
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class film articles
• C-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles