Talk:Aroused (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: HumanxAnthro (talk · contribs) 23:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you put a lot of major effort into this, and this looks like a very interesting subject to read about, but there's a couple of major problems I see right off the get-go.

I want to start with the lead. The first paragraph does a good job summarizing the film in a few sentences, and the second paragraph also works, although I don't think we need to have the "subsequent showings" sentence. However, problems begin with the third paragraph. The bottom two paragraphs feel like a "Reception" section of its own instead of a part of a lead. The common praises and critiques should all should be summarized within only one or two sentences, and there definitely shouldn't be quotes from specific reviews (those should always be left to the reception section). There's also the fact that some section consist of only paragraph that could easily be separated to make the info more easy for the reader to process.

A couple of other minor things: In the refs section, the publication name of New York Daily News should be only be linked the first cite it appears per policy. I've also quickly scanned the Reception section, and I'm gonna I'm not huge on process specifying specific review's ratings; reception section (especially critical review sections) are the most about actual opinions from most critics about the film, and filling up a section with sentences about scores that don't show any specific opinions just wastes the reader's time. Additionally, (and this is just in case you want to make this article more FA-quality) it could be more organized with common topics combined into paragraphs. I'm noticing a frequent topic is how the actresses were handled by the film, with one side stating they were exploited while the other's stating they were humanized, as well as the film garnering comparisons to several other works. HumanxAnthro (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HumanxAnthro, thanks very much for your thoughtful comments and suggestions. I've done my best to implement all of your suggestions, and noted that in the edit summaries. I removed the "subsequent showings" sentence, per your suggestion. I combined the bottom two paragraphs of the intro. I removed all quotes from the bottom two paragraphs of the intro. I greatly shortened the size of the reception info in the intro. I still want to give the reader a neutral summary of some of the positive and negative commentary from the film critics, in the intro. I removed the wikilinking of the publication name of New York Daily News, as it is already linked in the article body text and you are probably correct about that as well. Thank you very very much for your thoughts about if the article could someday be FA-quality, that would be great, but for now GA-quality would be amazing as a start. I took your suggestion and removed almost all of the scores and stars ratings info from the reception section. I think the reception section now flows well with a neutral representation of all of the both positive and negative feedback from film critics that I could find. I hope you'll find these changes substantive, significant, and responsive to your suggestions. Thanks again, Right cite (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, now it's looking more like it. Thank you for being cooperative. More comments coming soon. HumanxAnthro (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HumanxAnthro, thanks very much, I really appreciate your help in the collaborative process to improve it to a high quality article! Right cite (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the production section, here's my recommendation on how to separate the paragraphs:

Inspiration and writing: The first five sentences is the filmmaker's rise to fame and how that influenced her purpose of the film. That should be the first paragraph. The rest of the sentences are more specific goals of the project, so I don't mind that part being one paragraph, as long as it would be.
Casting: This should be three paragraphs: the first five sentences are how the actors are cast, the following three sentences are Anderson's comments, and the rest are comments from the actresses.
Release: One half of the section is about in-person screenings, while the other half is about home media releases. Divide it into two paragraphs as such.

As for the filming section, each one-to-two sentences has such disparate subjects I don't think it's dividable, so I'd say leave it. HumanxAnthro (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HumanxAnthro, thanks again, these were all good suggestions so I did all those as you said. These are all now done. Right cite (talk) 03:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Welp, looks like everything's taken care of. Pass HumanxAnthro (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]