Talk:Little Women (2019 film)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ShortSightedMan, DWRIGHT1229, Cherbez, Bbshill22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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 [disputable] improvements in the language. KyleJoan^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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 In April 2020, Deadline Hollywood calculated the net profit of the film to be $56 million, when factoring together all expenses and revenues into 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.

• Actual quote: Despite a misguided conception and a cast directed to act like disgruntled graduate students at Vassar, there’s much here that’s indestructible.
• Your paraphrase: However Mick LaSalle writing in the San Francisco Chronicle scored the film two and a half out of five, criticizing its "misguided conception" and a "cast directed to act like disgruntled graduate students".

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, therefore, your assessment that this article contains unnecessarily loaded terms sounds more like a preference than an NPOV issue.

All of that said, thank you for all of your assistance in getting this article GA ready! KyleJoan^talk 11:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@MapReader: You added that the 'San Francisco Chronicle' criticized the acting in the film. Can you provide a quote that supports this? The only one I can find reads, Mrs. March (Laura Dern, radiant with goodness) visits Mr. Laurence, and saying an actress is radiant with goodness doesn't sound like criticism to me. KyleJoan^talk 13:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The review specifically says “cast directed to act like disgruntled graduate students". This is clearly a criticism of the acting - not of “the characters” which is how you rephrased it. It would be better to approach the article as an editor rather than as an advocate for the film. MapReader (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Paraphrasing a comment about how the cast was directed to act a certain way as criticism toward their acting is a reach at best. Not only that, if you believe that the disgruntled graduate students description encompasses the entire cast, including actors portraying adult characters (e.g., Meryl Streep), then fine, but I don't believe any other editor would agree. Don't forget that the reviewer deemed Laura Dern radiant with goodness, so your proposed inclusion would need to read criticized . . . the acting (except Dern's). Gotta maintain NPOV, right?

My phrasing of how the reviewer criticized the characters as snooty is based on how he stated that the most noticeable thing about . . . Greta Gerwig’s new screen adaptation . . . is that the women in “Little Women” seem just a little bit snooty here, more like privileged actresses from 2019 than like a Northern family living in genteel poverty during the Civil War. Furthermore, the title of the article reads, Gerwig’s ‘Little Women’ are snootier than we remember, so I believe it is appropriate to highlight that bit.

WP:DUE also bears consideration. The review comprises a paragraph criticizing the characterization (i.e., So the most noticeable thing . . .), a paragraph criticizing the nonlinear timeline (i.e., Director Gerwig (“Lady Bird”) also wrote the screenplay . . .), and a paragraph complimenting Gerwig's direction (i.e., Gerwig can direct . . .). How many paragraphs analyzed the acting?

It would be better to approach the article with an explanation of how PUFF applies to it and a guideline that states that loaded terms must never be invoked in it. That aside, I understand you don't support this GA nomination. It's abundantly clear. If you'd like to open an RfC to obtain more responses on anything we've discussed, I'm happy to facilitate that. If not, there are many other GA nominations that could use your statement of lack of support. Have a great week! KyleJoan^talk 15:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@KyleJoan: @MapReader: Could y'all please continue your dispute here? The edit warring isn't benefitting anoyone. Rusted AutoParts 06:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: Sounds good to me. It would be helpful, though, if MapReader would answer my questions above. It's been almost a month, and they still have not responded with how PUFF applies. KyleJoan^talk 06:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

It is disappointing that Kyle seems determined to create a dispute over every small change to the existing wording, which I fear is going to make whoever does the GA review’s task very challenging. Being pushed to go to RFC over minor changes to phraseology, having edits reverted when they simply align the lead with the body of the article, or indeed the above comment that seeks to resurrect a month old discussion when I have let the wording of the article ride, all suggest WP:OWN to me. My view was that it is more encyclopaedic to use neutral terminology such as “wrote” or “stated” rather than loaded tems such as “lauded”, but having let the other editor’s wording ride, it is bizarre (and certainly not “helpful”) that he or she wishes to restart the argument, particularly as the respective points of view are already clearly stated higher up this page. MapReader (talk) 06:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

It is disappointing that Map continues to edit the article in accordance with their own stylistic preferences when WP:GACN specifically states not to do so. Regarding the GA review, I have had six nominations that passed for GA, so you're free to ask those six reviewers how challenging their respective reviews were. If not, worry about your own noms, eh? On the subject of PUFF, I was merely pointing out a pattern where the issues you raised were never detrimental to the article or that they were never issues to begin with. Otherwise, you would have pursued harder to prove your point or to broaden the previous discussion(s) with an RfC to make sure the article is up to standard.

Regarding our latest disagreement, MapReader, you stated that casting announcements don't belong in the lede because the citation supporting the casting is from the same month that the director was appointed. Where in the body does it say when Gerwig was appointed? The only sentence describing her involvement as director reads, In June 2018, Gerwig was announced as the film's director in addition to being its screenwriter. Would you like to make sense? KyleJoan^talk 07:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be helpful if we could stick to a civilised discussion about article content and avoid unnecessarily aggressive pokes like "would you like to make sense?". There are two points of concern about the phrase that I removed from the lead. The first is that it isn't supported by the body of the article, supported by a single citation that refers to Gerwig's imminent appointment alongside references to casting discussions apparently already very advanced. There is nothing to support the suggestion that Gerwig's appointment was made first and the casting announced later. The second concern is whether this relatively pedestrian detail is worth lifting into the lead in the first place? The lead is supposed to pick out the key elements of the article for the reader who doesn't have time to read the whole thing. That casting was announced after Gerwig's appointment, even if properly cited, could be stated in the article, but does not seem worth pulling up to the lead. Of more relevance and interest, I'd suggest, are the references in the article that Sony originally had other people in mind to write and direct, with Gerwig being a later choice - yet this isn't mentioned in the lead at all? MapReader (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Genre

A visually gorgeous period drama, the film poses a question of eternal relevance: How can a person behave unselfishly without annihilating herself? The Atlantic.

Until this point, you may have thought that the final season of 'Game of Thrones' and Greta Gerwig's 2019 period drama 'Little Women' couldn't be more different. HuffPost.

Greta Gerwig's Oscar-winning Little Women is on course to cross $100m at the international box office this spring according to sources, as the period drama's remarkable trajectory continues to charm fans. Screen International.

International box office for Greta Gerwig's period drama closes in on $100 million after strong starts in the two countries, which recently reopened their theaters. The Hollywood Reporter.

Deadline reports the Greta Gerwig directed coming-of-age period drama, based on the Louisa May Alcott novel of the same name, earned $760k over the weekend in offshore markets, including Japan, bringing the total to $99.5 million. Entertainment Weekly.

Seeing [Gerwig] pull off a grand period drama with such confidence, humor, and style leaves you with a sensation not unlike what Jo March must be feeling in the film’s final scene, as she watches while her first book is printed, sewn, and bound, a tiny smile playing on her lips. Slate.

Director Greta Gerwig's 'Little Women' may be the eighth film adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's coming-of-age-period drama, but it's the first that feels fitting to our time. WGBH.

Of course, Chalamet's usual taste for silver Haider Ackermann suits and sparkly Louis Vuitton harnesses wouldn't have flown with in the American period drama. Evening Standard.

[Gerwig's] turned a classic into an utterly modern and surprising period drama. The Guardian.

Sounds like sources say the film is a period drama. KyleJoan^talk 15:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Little Women (2019 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: S4499485 (talk · contribs) 13:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@S4499485: hello, it had been ten days since you picked this up for review. I’m wondering if you’re planning to proceed with it or not? Rusted AutoParts 17:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: potential abandoned review, reviewer only started their account on the day they opened the review and haven’t edited since. Rusted AutoParts 17:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@KyleJoan: Apparent that the reviewer ill not be returning to this review, you should go ahead and ask for a new reviewer. Rusted AutoParts 19:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I did so just now. Thank you for all your help, Rusted AutoParts! KyleJoan^talk 01:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Little Women (2019 film)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 22:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Noticed that the last reviewer left without actually reviewing, so I'm going to try leaving most of my suggestions below. As of right now, this article is well-written and I believe it will become a good one real soon. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 22:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Basic stuff and comments

• Per the film's billing block, I would remove all names in the infobox following Meryl Streep. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 22:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Those other names are in the billing block though. See the bottom of the poster. Rusted AutoParts 04:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• All references are archived so that's great. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 22:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Lead is already well-written. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 22:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Plot is already less than 700 words so that's that. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 22:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• As the article is written in American English, I suggest changing "theatre" to "theater" in the plot section. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 23:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• All images (other than the poster) are free to use so they pass. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 22:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• The last caption has a typo, so I would change "the Academy Award" to "the Academy Awards". Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 22:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• In the release section, change "released the first stills" to "released the first stills of the film". Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 22:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Also in the release section, I suggest adding the year to the last sentence that ends with "August 25". Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 22:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• In the "box office" section, I would change "finishing in fourth" to "finishing fourth". Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 22:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Following the fact that the film finished fourth, I would remove the Deadline Hollywood reference since it states the film earned $16.5 million in its first three days, contradicting Box Mojo and the article that state the film earned $16.8 million. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 22:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Also, I would add the fact that in its five days, the film finished fourth behind Frozen II. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 22:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Other than that, the article's "critical response", and "accolades" sections both pass.

Music

Other than all the suggestions above, I would advise moving the "music" sub-section under production into its own section per WP:FILMSCORE. Along with this, the {{Infobox album}} template should be added to the article, along with a tracklisting for the album (which can be found here). Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 23:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done I believe I've made all of the suggested changes. Please let me know if there are any others you believe would be appropriate! Thank you again, Some Dude From North Carolina! KyleJoan^talk 03:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

GA overall assessment

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Theatrical Property section

This section was removed by User:KyleJoan, who justified the removal under the WP:DUE policy. I do not understand how a policy related to viewpoint is relevant to the inclusion of interesting and illuminating facts (what a good article should include). If the problem is reliable sources, I'd say that the two sources cited are no less reliable than other web-based sources for a recent popular film. That these two separate sources reinforce each other independently should be further grounds for considering them reliable, at least for now. I'd like to see this section restored. Gcampbel (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The section can be found here. DUE is relevant because articles should not give minority [...] aspects as much of [...] a description as [...] widely supported aspects. It also says that the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. As a non-notable topic, Devon Eastland is a minor aspect of the film, therefore, so are her bookbinding work and cameo. In relation, something being true or useful (or in this case, interesting and illuminating) does not mean it must be included per WP:NOTEVERYTHING.

While the reliability of the sources is not as relevant as these guidelines, it bears mentioning that neither source discloses any information about their respective editorial policies. The first source even includes a photo provided by Eastland herself. It seems farfetched to suggest that these sources should be considered as reliable as Vulture or the Los Angeles Times. KyleJoan^talk 04:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

With respect, my initial objection remains (and I have seen the section in question, but I appreciate the convenience of a link). I have read the DUE wording several times now, and it seems to me this policy concerns viewpoints surrounding a contested point; I cannot find any relevant mention there, or in the material you've quoted, regarding a point of fact. The non-notable topic policy seems a closer fit, I will grant you. That said, in a film that adapts a novel, and in which the climactic scene at the end of the film features an extended sequence of bookbinding concluding with the primary character clutching the book to her body, I think a strong case can be made that information regarding the bookbinding is relevant and notable. Further, that book, in that binding, is a kind of binding for the film as well, as we see it near the beginning of the film and again at the end. I do understand a policy of not including everything in an article, but if the information is interesting and illuminating, I do not see that the article's quality is diminished by its inclusion--rather the opposite. That said, I do concede that these sources are not as reliable as the ones you cite, though I am obviously less convinced than you that they are not reliable at all. Again, I mean no disrespect, and I applaud your work in bringing this article successfully through a GA review. My point is merely that far more good than harm results from the inclusion of the omitted information. Perhaps a future editor will find more reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcampbel (talk • contribs) 04:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued tact and civility. I have never sensed any disrespect from you or any of your words, so please know that there is no need to qualify them in any way. The removed section (as well as the two sources) focused more on who did the bookbinding rather than the binding itself, and while I agree with your analysis, I don't believe we should include content that's only significant via its relation to our own interpretations without including the interpretations themselves. In this case, since no source has highlighted the significance of the binding (or its use as a motif), it is appropriate to exclude the fact that it was something that was simply part of the film's production. KyleJoan^talk 05:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

"See also"

An editor has repeatedly deleted the "See also" section that cross-references other film adaptations of the book. The only reason cited is that other adaptations of the same work aren't relevant to one particular adaptation. That's actually the definition of relevance. I have yet to see an adequate explanation of how it's irrelevant. I reverted these spurious edits and was accused of Edit Warring.

The right thing to do is to leave this section in place. There simply isn't a strong enough reason to delete it. Trashbird1240 (talk) 05:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

You're conflating each adaptation's relevance to the source material with each adaptation's relevance to each other via the same source material, which brings me to my earlier point: if "any article on any particular film should point users to other adaptations of a single work", then why are you only focused on this article and not attempting to generate a project-wide consensus? The pages listed on Category:Films based on A Christmas Carol must be suffering. The right thing to do is to generate a consensus to include this section and leave the closest revision to the version that passed the GA review in place until that happens. KyleJoan^talk 06:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not "passionate" about this. Your edits and your logic don't make any sense. You're just trying to protect this page from not being any way other than how you want it.
• We're not talking about other pages. A Christmas Carol is completely irrelevant.
• The other pages about Little Women DO have these sections, and there is nothing wrong with any of them. Nobody's deleted them.

If I go to the page about a movie, I entirely expect to see a list of other adaptations of the same story. I might be interested in seeing ALL the adaptations of a particular book. I don't care if you can quote a Wikipedia policy. It's entirely possible that the policy is STUPID and holds back editors from creating useful, informative content. As it is, you're just using policy to delete a perfectly reasonable section of a page. Trashbird1240 (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

book lore

Hey, I am new to Wikipedia and have never edited a page before, however I claim to be a Little Women (2019) expert. I would love to add some more information on Louisa May Alcott's inspiration behind the plot and characters. Blybaughn (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)