Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marilena from P7/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:14, 29 April 2008.

[edit] Marilena from P7

Self-nominator:

I have also requested for this article to be copyedited. I'm nominating it, as it covers the subject well, from my point of view seems to meet all criteria, and the original article (which I translated) is also a featured. diego_pmc (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This seems to be a very good article but the prose needs a copy-edit by someone with English as their first language. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That is why I listed it for copyediting. Anyway, do you think you can do a few changes, since you're en-5? diego_pmc (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Reviewers' time is not exactly infinite. Expecting a reviewer to copyedit a article is probably a bit beyond the call of duty for a reviewer, or at least it would be for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I just asked, no problem if he can't. diego_pmc (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I have too much else on just now. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Another point, by the way, is that article doesn't comply with WP:RSUE, which explains how to cite non-English sources.--ROGER DAVIES talk 20:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments I can't evaluate most of the sources, since they are in Romanian. However http://www.jigsawlounge.co.uk/film/index.php, what makes this a reliable source? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is that from? The only ref from jigsaw is this. diego_pmc (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It's the front page of that website. I list the front page rather than the exact page used so that folks can start poking around looking for information on the reliablity of the website. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe. I really don't understand how that front page makes it reliable or not. Anyway, I googled it, and Jigsaw is linked on a few other sites. diego_pmc (talk)
  • Oppose per referencing and image concerns:
  • I also worried about that, when I translated, but I forgot about it. Anyway, I've dealt with it, and added another reference. diego_pmc (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • IMDB is being used to support "non-data" information. IMDB utilizes user contributions; what makes it reliable?
  • I've look for another site to contain the info from IMDb (awards of the movie, if someone finds, please tell, or replace in article), but I couldn't find anything. Guess the only thing to speak in favor of the site's reliability is its reputation. diego_pmc (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It is used to link to an interview.
  • That doesn't address the question; what establishes the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to give us reasonable assurance the interview is being accurately represented? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Give me an example of what would make it reliable and I'll look at it. I'll also look for another site with this interview/info. diego_pmc (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • http://madalinaghitescu.bizland.ro/ - This is a personal site being used to support the roles for which the actress is purportedly best known. This does not appear to be a non-biased source.
  • The site is being used to reference the roles she had, no how she performed, so in this case it is reliable. diego_pmc (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If that's all the reference is supporting, then "best known to the Bucharestian public..." is WP:OR. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, true. I changed "best" with "became", which should address the WP:OR problem.diego_pmc (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Marilena from P7 - split screen.jpg - Why is a fair use image needed to understand split screen (NFCC#3A), a widely-known and common effect? Additionally, image (as well as others) is not low resolution (NFCC#3B).
  • The res issue can be easily solved, as for importance - it shows the effect to be used for the first time in a Romanian movie.
  • Why is an image necessary? Prose of "[this film is the] first time [split screen was used] in a Romanian movie" seems to conveys the the same information (NFCC#1). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have noting against it being replaced. diego_pmc (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Marilena from P7 filming.jpg - Why is this necessary to understand production? What important or meaningful aspect of production is being illustrated. How does an image of people standing around the director contribute significantly to our understanding (NFCC#8)? If seeing the director is important, a free alternative could be used, as he is still living.
  • The director is dead, this is also mentioned in the present article BTW - an image showing the people standing around the director, does contribute to our understanding of a situation mentioned in the article. The team faced a few, more or less violent incidents, caused by the Roma community in the neighborhood, but also problems in the actual filming.
  • And this image illustrates that how? Why isn't the text from your reply sufficient for this understanding? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, it's pretty obvious how it illustrates the discomfort caused by the Roma. The image does no harm, and only clarifies the situation. diego_pmc (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Marilena from P7 - hand.jpg has inadequate purpose (as do other images) of "Use within the film's article, for illustrating purposes". What are those purposes? Why are they necessary and significant to our understanding of the film and/or its characters? If portrayal of the actors/characters is the purpose, there does not appear to be meaningful make-up or costume that would necessitate a fair use image over a free alternative of still-living actors.
  • It is used to illustrate the characters, and that's why I think an in-movie screenshot is better for that purpose, than pictures of the actors. diego_pmc (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The main subject is the film, and not its actors. diego_pmc (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • A poster of the same size can be found here, and in its description it says it's low-res. That was my guiding point. At any rate, it is still too small to be used for illegal purposes, but of course, if really needed it could be resized. diego_pmc (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Assuming they wouldn't appear on other legitimate sites [1] [2] if they were illegal, I guess there's no issue. diego_pmc (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Q: It seems, one of the issues you see in this article is related to the incorrect use of images. I'm willing to address it, but there are a few images I want to keep: the one with the director surrounded by gypsies, and the splitscreen. If you think it's needed, the image with Marilena and Andrei, and the split-screen one, could be replaced with other, from the movie. For the first, I, for example would think this image is more suggestive. And of course, they could be made smaller. diego_pmc (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose Good article, but per Roger Davies the writing just doesn't make sense in some places. Also, there are some reference issues as stated above. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Point out, please, so that I can address them.diego_pmc (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll point out specifics:
  • Originally, the film was intended to be only an exercise, not supposed to be longer than seven minutes.—Awkward wording.
  • Being about teenage love (a subject preferred by the director),[7] the film was received positively by the public; it impressed through its unitary view and the way the story, together with the picture and the sound, combine together into a new and organic way, by using innovative, unusual techniques—Same thing.
  • Marilena and Giani were in fact in her apartment; the girl goes for a minute to the restroom.—First, could be worded better. Second, what girl?
  • The news about Marilena's suicide travel fast around the neighborhood.—Incorrect grammar.
  • The film's idea resulted from a small scale exercise between Nemescu and Liviu Marghidan during their time at university (precisely in 2003).—What university?
  • Initially the film was planned as a short fiction, the project evolving during 2005.—Again, should be worded better.
  • Thus the screenplay was rewritten and filming started with a very reduced budget of only $14,000 (money collected by Nemescu by participating at various film festivals, with older short fiction poeces).—Is that US dollars?

There are plenty more examples, so it would probably take a long copyediting or even a rewrite to get the writing up to FA standards. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.