Talk:Flame & Citron/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 00:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice to come across your name again! :) This is second on my "to review" list. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 00:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• I would probably prefer to have it say "a fictionalized account of true events" in that clause in the second sentence.
• Are there any more plot details that would be relevant to the lead?
• I would prefer "the director tried to depict war" instead of what is currently there.
• "Borrowing visual and narrative references from film noir and the French film Army of Shadows" this seems to be important info for the lead, but does not exactly fit with the rest of the paragraph (which focuses on reception), so placing at the end of the prior paragraph would be more appropriate.
• In the image of Mikkelsen, you misspelled "masculinity"
• "...three companies—Nimbus Film, Wüste Film and Babelsberg Studio—working on it." I think that the end of that sentence should be "eventually producing it" instead of "working on it."
• The lead states that it was the most expensive Danish film produced to that date, while the wording in the Production section makes it sound like it still holds that record. Which one is it?
• "slip himself into any part" Specify who stated this.
• I would prefer the prepositional phrase "by the director" to come earlier in the sentence, namely after "was chosen"
• I think it's a little bit of an overly dramatic wording to say that he "declared" the last quote. I would prefer "stated", "commented", or "remarked".
• Is there any overall topic to the third paragraph of the Themes section? If so, could you put a sentence about that at the top of that paragraph. You accomplish this really well for the other parts of this section.
• We can talk about this if you don't agree, but I think the content in the style section can be split up between Production and Themes. In my opinion, directors' commentary should be in the production section in a new paragraph, while reviewer commentary should go in a cinematography paragraph in themes.
• For the reviews—I assume you speak or at least understand Danish?
• Might you put a sentence on what generally received praise and criticism in international reviews?
• I don't think "moderated" is correctly used to describe someone's opinion. :)
• art-house theaters is a more formal term
• I've never seen the collapsible box you have for the awards before. Considering that the list isn't too long and doesn't overwhelm the article, I would remove the collapsible box and just put it in the article proper.
• Are there any publications or historians who defended the film or parts of it as accurate?

Thanks, Johanna. I've made all the changes you recommended, except for the second. As standard in film articles, I try to avoid going into spoilers—the very basic premise is there. Waiting for more comments. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Gabriel Yuji: I have finished my comments. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 21:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I did the most you recommended. About its budget, it's hard to precise whether or not it was surpassed (very few sources on Danish film budgets)—and I don't know anyway if it's relevant to say if was or not or if it's useful to have a list of films that had a bigger budget—so I guess the most safe alternative is to add "to that date".

About the third paragraph of "Themes", I think Turan's commentary is a summary-like commentary. I mean, it affirms that beyond the other themes of the other paragraphs, there are mix of themes, which is also stated by Derakhshani. I guess Fuchs and Abeel are more romantic-centred but I couldn't find a better way to fit it in the section. Any suggestion? Anyway, I've changed the order of the paragraphs. I think it makes more sense now because the third (that was the fourth by the time of your commentary) is more related to the second and the fourth (former third) is more or less a conclusion as it deals with all the themes that are discussed (Turan and Derakhshani) and mentions romantic features that are secondary.

About "Style" section, I can see what you are saying (the first paragraph fits perfectly in "Production") but it's a bit complicated. I mean, themes is more what content is presented; style is more how the content is presented. Anyway, I'll see what I can do but I don't think a division like director vs. commentators is enough. Guy Lodge of Incontention described it as "owing much to film noir in the intricacy of its narrative and the lush, shadow-drenched stylization of its visuals" is definitely not a theme, for example. Maybe I can move reviewers' commentary to to reception to have a coehisive paragraph on style... What do you think?

About a summary for international reception, I don't have any source that comments on the general reception—I'll look for it but I remember that I've checked probably all English-language sources available. Moreover, I'm afraid to going into WP:SYNTH (see this). Anyway, I'm not sure we have a consensus beyond "it was positively received".

About your last question, it's certainly intriguing and I'll look for it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Gabriel Yuji: Thank you--I am content with your responses and believe that I can pass. If you plan to go to FAC, I might recommend a peer review first, but it seems on track for that as well. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 03:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)