Talk:Honeyland/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 00:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Talk and history look stable
• Sources look good, and inline cites used well
• Ignoring this, which was written after the article and clearly took the description, copyvio looks fine.
• Images good and used well

Lead

• Lead is a bit too long - three long paragraphs isn't justified by the article length
• Add a comma after North Macedonia in the second sentence
• Is after the arrival of a nomad family in the neighbouring house technically correct, i.e. is 'the arrival in the neighbouring house' correct grammar? Also, is 'in the neighbouring house' not more commonly referred to by 'next door' in English?
• Also an issue with Originally intended as a government-supported ... - is this saying it was going to be supported by the government or be a film that supports the government? It requires rewriting either way (for the first, "Originally intended as a documentary short that would be government-supported", for the second "Originally intended as a documentary short that supports the government" - or "Originally intended as a government-supportive documentary short", but it doesn't read so good) because of how "intended as a" works in terms of describing film, i.e. the phrasing works for genre and technical characteristics, not production ones. As another point, is the significance of this even relevant in the context? The sentence is about the focus changing, not the relationship to the government.
• Add 'the' in front of "river Bregalnica"
• upon the encounter between the filming team and Muratova would read a lot better if simplified to "when the crew met Muratova"
• Comma needed after 'documentary' at the start of the second paragraph
• A lot of the second paragraph could be condensed in terms of content and phrasing
• Was it "widespread and universal critical acclaim" - surely it's one or the other, since 'widespread' and 'universal' are mutually exclusive.
• Film critics doesn't need a wikilink
• Awkward phrasing at the directors' attention to visual details and the universal message of nature conservation - just say "attention to detail and promotion of conservation of nature"
• In prizes at award shows - surely you mean festivals?
• Consider condensing the part about its nominations
• Move the sentence on gross to the end of the first paragraph

Plot

• Instead of in the country and the continent with wikilinks to the relevant country and continent, it could say "in North Macedonia and Europe" (still with wikilinks, but clearer).
• lives together with is a direct translation from another language - it's just 'lives with' in English
• She earns her and her mother's living → "Hatidže earns a living"; this clears up the 'she', since the last person mentioned is actually the mother, and corrects the idiom
• by harvesting the honey she gets from beekeeping in batches and selling her products can be just "by selling honey" - it doesn't need to be explained where a beekeeper is getting honey, shorter is more digestible, and this cuts out the awkward 'harvesting in batches' phrase
• In different parts of this article, Hatidže Muratova is referred to by both her first and last name alone - pick one or the other and be consistent
• Muratova views her work as a means of restoring balance in the ecosystem. This is exemplified through moments when she says the lines "half for me, half for you" to her bees when harvesting their honey. This principle is based on the customs and traditions of her ancestors, passed on by her grandfather who taught her that bees need to use their own honey for nutrition to obtain more energy for flying and mating.[6][7] The documentary shows numerous shots of Hatidže and her neighbors during the beekeping process, including the handling of the apiaries where the bees are kept, cutting honeycombs and collecting honey in jars. is a discussion of the plot, not the plot - remove or move somewhere else

Conception and development

• Starting from 2015, the documentary was shot over three years and the final version was condensed from more than 400 hours of footage should be in the filming section, not here
• Same phrasing issue re. 'government-supported' as in the lead
• I don't think 'central' in "Central North Macedonia" should have a capital C
• The chronology of the film funding and conception is unclear - so it was going to be made for the Swiss, funded by SFIFF and the North Macedonian government, but which came first? Did the filmmakers agree to make the film for the Swiss before funding? Needs clarity and likely rewriting here
• The directors' initial main idea was supposed to be the change of location of people inhabiting Bregalnica and the surrounding region along with the natural change of its course that takes place every ten years - this can definitely be cut down and cleared up. How about "Initially, the directors were planning to focus on the rotational farming practices of the area"
• However, upon arriving to the intended filming location, they met Muratova and proposed to her to star in the documentary. Although initially taken aback, she agreed to get involved as she had been trying to get her message across to the world for a while - ouch. This would be good to connect to the previous sentence and needs correcting. → ", however, when they arrived on location they met Muratova and suggested making the documentary about her. [Person] said that Muratova was taken aback, but agreed because she had been wanting to give her message about sustainability to the world." – replace [Person] with whoever this can be attributed to from the Gloria source.
• The last sentences about the story need to be rewritten for grammar, too, but I also feel restructuring would improve the style. I'd suggest starting it with "The film was then going to focus on Muratova's relationship with her mother, and the directors had no conflict planned until the nomad family arrived some time later. ..."

Filming and production

• Why is the Macedonian name of the town down here, at not where it is first mentioned?
• The production team consisted of six people, namely two directors, two directors of photography (DOP), one editor, and one audio engineer. → "The production involved a crew of six: the two directors, two directors of photography, an editor and an audio engineer."

• Was it actually two DOPs, or a DOP and another camera operator? DOP is a specific role

• One of the main challenges for the DOPs was the lack of electricity and to achieve the desired image quality they had to only rely on natural sunlight, candles, gaslight and a fire place - this is two challenges. How about, "The production explains that challenges in filming included..."
• When directing, Kotevska was in charge of portraying relationships between people while Stefanov was responsible for the environmental aspects of the documentary doesn't read well. A more encyclopedic tone puts the point first, like "The two directors each focused on a different element of the narrative; Kotevska..."
• This style is also known as fly on the wall in documentary jargon is very in-your-face. Just mention it is fly on the wall. A drama film would just say 'X is a drama and does a, b, c.', not 'X does a, b, c. This is called drama in film jargon.' Come on.

• I'm going to stop here for now, and would like this article to have a copyedit before I review any further. Hopefully many following issues will be resolved by that, since the coverage looks good.

Hello and thank you very much for doing the review! I addressed all of your comments now so I would appreciate it if you could continue the review as there are only four sections left. I will try to correct some of the sloppy paragraphs as well in the meantime. DD1997DD (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @DD1997DD:, has a copyedit from WP:GOCE been requested? As said, the issues seem to be across the whole article, and it would be a streamlined review if the style and grammar was cleaned up first. Thanks for addressing the first few sections. Kingsif (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I just requested a copyedit. It might take a few days before someone does it though. DD1997DD (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Kingsif:, seeing that there is no response from GOCE for two weeks now, would you mind if we just continue with the review of the remaining 4 sections? DD1997DD (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@DD1997DD: GOCE can take a while, unless you're in a hurry? Kingsif (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: The requested GOCE review has finished today. Could we continue with the review? DD1997DD (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, great! Will add notes below. Kingsif (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@DD1997DD: Some comments:

• The sentence Initially, the directors were planning to focus on the rotational farming practices of villagers inhabiting the area around Bregalnica and follow the natural change of the river's flow that takes place every ten years is a little confusing - it does not make clear who is following the natural change.... Is it that the directors were planning to follow the natural change, or that the villagers follow the natural change?

I think I fixed it now, but please check.

• There's not really an explanation of the use of direct cinema and cinema verite - and how these may or may not overlap. I also think fly on the wall is more a sub-type of direct cinema, so it seems strange to only say there are elements of this. Is there anything more written about direct cinema and cinema verite in the sources? More information probably isn't necessary for GA, and it might be more for people that know about documentary filmmaking, but it would be nice to clarify/expand if possible.

No, they just mention that it is a cinema verite/fly on the wall documentary from what I can remember.

• Is the first part of the sentence She compared Sam's client as "the pressure of society" on producers and said Sam's initial hesitation to sell more honey than he could produce comes from the conflict between his moral values and "the pressures of society" strictly necessary? There doesn't seem to be any meaning until "Sam's initial..." - and repeated quotation is something to fix

Fixed.

• the message of sustainability the documentary sends to modern-day citizens - how about just "the message of sustainability in the documentary"?

Fixed.

• The first two paragraphs of the Theme section are really just quote-dumps about the sustainability theme. Including some exploration of how the theme is covered could be good - but this isn't really apparent, and there's needless repetition of the fact the theme is there.
• Saying that it covers anthropological topics should come before the discussion of these topics

Fixed.

• How was the release done in Australia and New Zealand - theatrical or VOD? And was this affected by the pandemic?

I don't know, no sources discuss the influence of the pandemic.

• The critical reception is written quite well, but the phrasing "X writing for Y who gave it Z stars said" can feel tedious where there's no other discussion - and is there a need to mention each review's star rating? I haven't seen this in the prose of any other article except where the rating is discussed. (Template:Film and game ratings could be used if you want, and I'm not just mentioning the template because I rewrote it)
• The rest looks good. Kingsif (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Overall

•  On hold The writing is very weak. I've tried to explain how the writing needs improvement, but would recommend a complete copyedit from GOCE. Kingsif (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@DD1997DD: The 'Initially' part looks good now - unless there's more info on the recent release, this looks good to pass. Let me know if there is/isn't coverage. Kingsif (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't find anything new except for the source that I've already used in the article. Thank you very much for doing the review by the way! DD1997DD (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)