Talk:Being Impossible/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 22:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating this one, Kingsif. You've done a few GA reviews for me, so it's time I returned the favour. This article appealed to me as a fascinating topic, and I hope this review will help improve it. (I will potentially be submitting it for Wikicup/backlog credit.)

Here are my first batch of thoughts:

• The synopsis is looking pretty short, which I'm guessing is an indication of you having not actually seen the movie. It's location dependent (and you'd want to find out if English subtitles are available if you don't speak Spanish) but it does look like there are some options out there like Hulu and DirecTV. I think this is the biggest issue in terms of GA criteria, because if a work is publicly available (in some countries for some price), an article isn't really "broad" (3(a)) without a good synopsis. We also need it for context so that "Analysis" and "Reception" make sense. MOS:FILMPLOT says Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. If it's looking very difficult for you to view the movie, I could look into whether I could watch it and write a plot summary, and in the worst case using reviews/interviews to flesh out the synopsis may be possible.
• On the subject of "feature film", I was confused as to whether this was a full-length film for a while: the infobox needs to mention runtime. It looks like it's 97 minutes from the DirecTV link above.

•  Done

• The article doesn't quite flow for me yet. I think this is largely because the "Production" and "Analysis" sections lack cohesion. For the former, I'd break it down into subsections like "Writing", "Funding and filming" and "Release" and then if there are subsections that look a bit too short, that's impetus to see if more sources (or the sources already used) go into further detail—see also my next comments. For the latter, think about which comments made by different critics relate to one another, and how you would explain to me why the comments are listed in the order that they are. Sometimes sources make it very difficult to write an "Analysis" section that flows, but I think this one has scope for improvement.

•  Done

• Crowdfunding only gets a sentence but perhaps there's more detail, and even primary sources might be acceptable for some purposes here. Do we know anything about budget, overall or from any individual grants/crowdfunding campaigns?

• Nothing on budget, but expanded

• The film trailer is put in "Reception" but I don't think it belongs there. It could go under "Production", next to the content about the film's release. But this highlights another omission: we hear that Ortega is concerned about marketing, but not about any marketing that actually takes place. Official trailer releases can be used as primary sources, if there are any, and any other sources about promotion would be great.

•  Done

• Critical comments should all be past tense e.g. "Beatrice Loayza commented".

•  Done

• Can we mention the soundtrack in "Production", even just "X composed the soundtrack"? It's a bit odd to first hear of it in the sentence Loayza also mentions the award-winning music ....

•  Done

• I'm currently involved in another discussion about interpretations of WP:NONENG, but I think in this case the pertinent part is fairly clear: In articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians, and the translating editor is usually not cited. If these quotes from Spanish reviews are all machine/user translated, then I think we need their Spanish equivalents somewhere, though inclusion in the citation would suffice.

•  Done

Let me know if there are any thoughts on these points, particularly if you disagree with me about anything. Once we've come to consensus on each point one way or another, I'll go over the new version with a fine tooth comb, and do some checking of the references. I'm putting this  On hold and hoping that we can get the points above resolved within a week, but let me know if that won't be possible. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments, I'll try get to work. I've also found this video (Spanish) about the production, so there might be something useful from there. I haven't looked too much at this since before the film was released, hopefully I'll be able to find it streaming somewhere. Kingsif (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: have you been able to find any way you can view the film? — Bilorv (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I have not - I tried HBO, Hulu, and Amazon Prime, but they're all region-locked and I am not in the right place (and obviously can't travel right now). I've been a bit busy besides this, and was going to look at more of the reviews that have since come out to improve the plot, so I'll hopefully get to that in the next few days. Kingsif (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough, thanks for the response. — Bilorv (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I've expanded the synopsis and worked on some of the other comments, restructuring the other sections. I've also added an image of the main character, from one of the creative commons licensed trailers. Kingsif (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep, good. Feel free to cross off the comments above as you go or whatever you want. Let me know when they've all been addressed (except possibly the first point). — Bilorv (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I believe they're all addressed, possibly besides the first point - synopsis expanded but I don't think it quite hits 400 words yet. Kingsif (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep, most of these have been fixed and the Production/Analysis/Reception look up to GA standard in coverage and detail now. There's still present tense where there should be past tense in the Analysis and Reception sections ("she talks about", "also comments", "he notes that" etc.) and "Kagaoan also complemented" should be "complimented". There's also a ref error in the SWITCH source.

I'm afraid I do think this plot issue is a sticking point. It's at 270 words and while I'd accept it for GA at 400, it would be ideal to get a proper summary. I've looked at what I can access as well and unfortunately am not in a position to watch it. I think it would be a good next move to try to find someone who can. It should be possible, as it looks like we just need an American who has a subscription to HBO (or can access HBO via another subscription) and has a couple of hours to help us out. WP:FILM, WP:TV or WP:WPWIR might be good places to consult. — Bilorv (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I have asked at the various projects, and can get those little style things fixed up. The SWITCH source is missing a url, because the website is blacklisted (it's a fine source, but last year an IP wouldn't stop adding it to leads) - I have already requested it be removed. Kingsif (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I'm afraid it looks to me like we won't get any replies at these WikiProjects. Can you think of any other places we might get a response, or is there any way we can flesh out the summary further from the information in reviews or interviews or other sources? — Bilorv (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I've tried to do my best to stick close to the reviews and festival descriptions, if you want to read through and see if there's anything more to be gleaned, that's fine. Otherwise, it is distributed by Media Luna and I know some of their catalog is going to VOD in these trying times, so we might be in luck soon. Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: okay, I'll give it one more look soon and if it's not fruitful then I'll have to fail the review. If we get a plot summary written by anyone who's seen the film then I'm happy to do another GA review of the article later. Hopefully the comments have been helpful in improving the article. :) — Bilorv (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, and totally understand - I wouldn't compromise on plot coverage either :) Kingsif (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we can't really stretch out the current sources available to a full plot without guesswork or inaccuracy. That's a fail for GA for now. — Bilorv (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)