Jump to content

Talk:Venezuelan cinema in the 1890s/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Maplestrip (talk · contribs) 13:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article in the coming days. Absolutely loving it already! Will give suggestions for improvements and will fill out the template below as I go through the page and its sources. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): Well written!
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Interesting use of layout and tables and such. It works very well for the subject matter.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): Every sentence/paragraph is cited, except for two (image description, and typical cost) - fixed!
    b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are suitably reliable as used. Opinions seem to be by experts in the field and properly published.
    c (OR): Some slight synthesis in phrasing and interpretation of sources, but everything a-OK
    d (copyvio and plagiarism): Perfectly original writing.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Covers all major films of the period, and style and influence. Could maybe explain the human stories of individuals involved better (Mèndez, Durán, the film circuit in Caracas)
    b (focused): Focused very well on Venezuela specifically, and the timeperiod specifically. Mentions the rest of Latin America and the early 1900s in good ways.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: Perfect
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.: Perfect
  6. 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): All four images are appropriately used and placed, and should all be public domain due to their age. All perfect.

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Comments, questions, and suggestions

[edit]

Most of these will probably be either minor suggestions or questions that came to me while reading the page, unless I indicate differently. Don't worry if this list gets long, I like being thorough I'll be clear if one of these points might be an issue for GA class.

  • The Paulo Antonio Paranaguá-quote, "another foreign import", seems to refer to South America as a whole. It is not clear if Paranaguá is Venezual or, for example, Brazilian. Unless I am missing something, I think it should be made clear that this paragraph is about South America as a whole rather than Venezuela specifically.
  • Moreover, I am not 100% sure if "one with Venezuelans only as the viewers, the other with them being viewed" and "the desire for modernity" are accurate abbreviations of the highly academic source cited here. As for the former, the book says that "the appearance and diffusion of the cinema in Latin America followed the patterns of neo-colonial dependency typical of the region's position [globally]," talking a great deal about imperialism. Though the viewer/viewed dichotomy feels like a good way to sum that up, it also feels like an interpretation. As for "modernity", I am not entirely sure which line to look at for this one. I think the book talks more about what "is" rather than about what humans "desire". Regardless, this may be covered well enough by the "Memorias de Venezuela"-source too.None of these necessarily require action, but I think looking at it might allow us to more accurately match the source we draw from.
  • The story of Mèndez bringing the Vitascope from New York to Maracaibo is actually told on page 45, not 42-43. There's more useful material in this source too, like "Al igual que otros empresarios norteamericanos, Méndes deseaba disfrutar de genes; asi que adquirió los derechos de distribución y difusión del Vitascopio, para proyectar películas en Venezuela y Colombia".
  • Looking at the article as a whole, I think splitting that section is warranted, yes, though not necessary for GA. I would recommend to split paragraph "Reviews in contemporary newspaper ..." onwards into a section titled something like "Contemporary reception". This would also give you the opportunity to move the line about affordability up into the "Introduction" section. It feels out of place where it is, and it is more relevant to the logistics of the introduction of film in the region. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Monroe Doctrine is actually discussed on page 46.
  • Oh, that would explain that. I didn't spot any article page numbers, but if they are in there then we should use those.
  • People like Michelle Leigh Farrell, Stephen M. Hart, Azuaga García, and Yolanda Sueiro Villanueva are quoted without any clarity on who they are or why their knowledge of this topic matters. Suggested changes: "Michelle Leigh Farrell of Georgetown University", "author Stephen M. Hart", "Azuaga García of the Universitat de Valencia", etc.
  • I would change "One review of the first Venezuelan films also reports ..." as follows: "A 1897 review of early Venezuelan films in the Maracaido newspaper El typographer reports ..."(more clarity one what the original source is).
  • I think "practically neglecting the limitations of the silent and black and white image" could be alternatively translated to "practically ignoring ...", which sounds more positive.
  • (Will continue this type of commenting later. So far it is very very good!) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous section states that a film circuit was established in Caracas in 1899, but the 'National films' list lists Caracas films from 1897. Doesn't that mean the film circuit already existed in '97?
  • You must cite the claim made under the image "Boys enjoying a swim in Lake Maracaibo, ..."
  • There is an option to change the table as follows: Remove the "cast" column, add the one cast credit to the "notes" column, and create a new column "city" to track whether the film originates from Maracaibo or Caracas. Current situation is fine too, but this might look nicer.
  • Should the list use the word "actualité" rather than "documentary" to describe these early films? I don't know.
  • Tom Gunning described Latin American cinema as "cinema of attractions". This term might work better than "spectacle" in this article, but either works.
  • "Trujillo Durán, who travelled around Venezuela and then onto Colombia with the Vitascope projector; as he was traveling he may have acquired new films from the company to show at different locations." I'm surprised this is not mentioned in the "Introduction and reception" section.
  • The cost of being at a screening in this period (between 1 and 20 bolívares) is unsourced. This should be sourced before the article can be promoted.
  • Everything is looking very good. The issue that kept me from promoting it immediately is resolved, so I will be promoting the article to GA status right now. Of course, you can still continue improving the article further, as always. I hope my comments and perspectives were useful. Thank you, Kingsif, for writing such an absolutely awesome article! I very much enjoyed reading this one and going through the sources :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Venezuelan_cinema_in_the_1890s/GA1&oldid=947624718"