Talk:Happier Than Ever: A Love Letter to Los Angeles/Archive 1

Archive 1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Happier Than Ever: A Love Letter to Los Angeles/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: VersaceSpace (talk · contribs) 14:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Picking this up for review as requested here. —VersaceSpace 🌃 14:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, so I completely forgot about this, but I'll try to get through as much as possible now. —VersaceSpace 🌃 06:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

• Here and across the article, you do not need to include the full title of the film wherever you refer to it. You could cut it down to Happier Than Ever or A Love Letter to Los Angeles
  • I'm a bit torn on this one. The article references use Happier Than Ever as shorthand, but that also is the name of the album which the article has to discuss in multiple occasions. So that's gonna cause confusion. On the other hand, A Love Letter as far as I can tell is not used as shorthand in lots of sources. Do we just IAR what the WP:SUBTITLES section says and just go for the latter option? ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
    _{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 14:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
    • That's fine with me. Ambiguity was definitely not the end goal when that MOS guideline was written, so I'd say ignore it. —VersaceSpace 🌃 06:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
      • This is  Done
• "multiple other musicians, who include her brother" → "multiple other musicians, including her brother"
• "without a live audience due to the COVID-19 pandemic" can be safely removed since you haven't elaborated on why there would be an audience to begin with. And I feel like you did that would be much detail for the lead.
  • Resolved the above two
• "some of whom deemed it a film that Eilish's fans would enjoy"... this is usually something critics say when giving a lukewarm review, so I suggest changing this.
  • Removed entirely

Plot

• "slowly takes off her clothes" → "slowly takes her clothes off"
  • Not sure about this suggestion since both sound alright to me, but  Done. Doesn't really hurt

Cast

• prioritize the instrumentalists with articles in the list
  • Alright then. I was going for how often they appeared in the film but this is fair enough I guess

Production

• "Billie Eilish was born in and spent her formative years in Los Angeles". OK, so I think you're just supposed to use her last name here. Also this seems like a wordy way to say she was born and raised in LA.
  • Trimmed
• I think the last period goes outside the GMA quote.
  • Wikipedia follows the 'logical quote' formatting - the punctuation goes inside the quote marks only if it appears on the original material. This one is fine.
• If a clear period where Billie contacted Rodriguez cannot be established, remove the sentence.
  • Why not? It's not the clearest, sure, but either way, it helps with creating a timeline described throughout this article. April/May 2021 is when she contacted the directors, June is when Disney contacted the animation studio, July was principal photography, etc. I cannot see any strong argument for removing this - when the relevant people first contacted each other is pretty essential detail about a film's development, I would say.
• Not seeing the relevance of "Rain on Me"
  • Fair enough, removed
• "The daughter decided" → "His daughter decided"
  • Done

Marketing and release

• "many immediately compared" → "many commentators compared"
  • Clarified
• "Then, A Love Letter to Los Angeles premiered worldwide on September 3, 2021" - not sure the first word is necessary.
  • Removed
• "available to watch with Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos." - I think you watch it in Dolby, not with.
  • Good catch; rewritten

Reception

• "told via the album's lyrics" → "told through the album's lyrics"
  • That did seem like odd wording to me. Changed
• also the sentence including the above words is a run-on sentence
  • While I don't see a run-on sentence issue, I do see a lengthy sentence issue, so I have rewritten it somewhat
• "I'd never treat me this s–tty" → "I'd never treat me this shitty" per WP:NOTCENSORED
  • Spelled out
• Period goes outside the quotation throughout this section
• CTRL + F shows me seven results with .", so those should be "..
  • I know you put this under the "Reception" header but I tried my best to apply logical quotations throughout the whole thing. However when you Ctrl+F ." please keep in mind that "When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark." For example, there's simply too much at work conceptually to dismiss it as [such]. is a complete sentence. But as with everything else that Eilish does by way of visual accompaniment, there’s simply too much at work conceptually to dismiss it as a mere gift to fans. is the original quote. [such] replaces 'a mere gift to fans' here. The periods for both excerpts end at the same spot, so the punctuation goes inside the quotation marks.
• "during the Happier Than Ever, The World Tour" doesn't make sense
  • Reworded

References

• Only the first instance of each publication should be wiki-linked. (Ctrl+F Billboard, Collider, Uproxx, Rolling Stone, NYT, Deadline Hollywood)
  • MOS:DUPLINK is the relevant guideline here, but this ain't in the GA criteria this should not really be a concern for a GAN. Either way, the guideline states that "Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article."
• None of these seem to be unreliable, except Austin Chronicle comes up orange on my reliability-script for whatever reason.
  • I would trust their reliability. The author of those Chronicle articles, Richard Whittaker, is listed as a Rotten Tomatoes critic. If you look at Linkedin page it suggests an extensive background in journalism. Plus, reliability of sources always depends on context - here, the refs simply list "hey these are the nominees, and these are also the winners" in a pretty straightforward fashion. No immediate red flags present themselves here. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
    _{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 16:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Good. Y —VersaceSpace 🌃 17:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

General comments

• Copyvio score looks good at 31.5%
• Putting this  On hold. —VersaceSpace 🌃 16:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the helpful review @VersaceSpace. I have done my best to address your comments - I rebutted some of them a fair bit, so please read carefully. Also, I'd like to ask if you already spotchecked some sources to ensure compliance with verifiability and OR policies ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
    _{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 16:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Your Power, of course I did some spot-checks, and as far as I can tell there aren't any violations...unless there's something you'd like to show me? If not I'm ready to pass this as your rebuttals are fair. —VersaceSpace 🌃 17:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
      • Well, the main reason I asked was because I wanted to know if the reception section provided an accurate summary of the reviews, without any misrepresentations or half-truths 🤷‍♀️ it took me a long time to write that from scratch and I ended up writing a lot of words, so I imagine something would have slipped through the cracks. But I'm glad to know that's not the case, I hope ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
        _{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 17:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
        • I mean, the reviews section gives a good mix of positive and negative opinions. It's harder because, unlike album reviews, there's no numerical score. So you did a good job representing the authors' opinions. —VersaceSpace 🌃 17:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
          • Oh, thank you! That's a relief to hear. Once again I appreciate you took your time to make this review - we can wrap up here now. I'll take a look at this shortly ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
            _{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 17:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
• ✓ Pass —VersaceSpace 🌃 17:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by CSJJ104 (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Billie Eilish worked with Disney to create a live-action and animated concert film for her second album? Source: Various; see The Hollywood Reporter article and Collider interview
  • ALT1: ... that Billie Eilish's Disney concert film censors the word fuck, but not bitches or shit? Source: Common Sense Media review, CinemaBlend article
  • ALT2: ... that Billie Eilish's Disney concert film says lots of "shit"? Source: See ALT3 hook
  • ALT3: ... that in Billie Eilish's Disney concert film, every live performance is interspersed with animated sequences? Source: Animation World Network interview with animator Patrick Osborne
  • ALT4: ... that a 65-minute concert film starring Billie Eilish was filmed all in one week? Source: See interviews on Animation Magazine and Sony Cine
  • ALT5: ... that "the ironclad inescapability of fame" is one of many themes in a concert film starring Billie Eilish? Source: Article in the Recording Academy website
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Tigris (roller coaster)
  • Comment: These are listed in order of my personal preference. It was fun coming up with hooks for this one - there were lots of real cool things I found while researching for this article. Of particular interest to me were the ones related to not censoring certain swear words because, well, it's a Disney animation work! This doesn't seem like their thing.

Improved to Good Article status by Your Power (talk). Self-nominated at 15:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC).

• Article has achieved Good Article status. No issues of copyvio or plagiarism. All sources appear reliable. I like the primary hook too, more descriptive. QPQ is not done. Once that is competed, this will be ready to go. Thriley (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @Thriley - thanks for the review! QPQ is done. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
    _{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 15:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• Looks ready to go! Thriley (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)