Talk:Layla M./GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 18:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Nub098765 (talk · contribs) 07:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Heya! I'll review this. Nub098765 (talk) 07:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Wow that went faster than usual, thanks for taking it on and I'm around to answer any questions. Mujinga (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There are a few unclear sentences, but nothing that can't be fixed in one edit. Here are some suggestions (do discount them if they feel too nitpicky or are wrong): As in other films by de Jong, the focus is on a strong-willed young woman growing up. — This feels a bit unclear. The focus of what? "Growing up" also seems a bit vague. Here's a revision: Like de Jong's other works, the film focuses on a strong-willed young woman coming of age. adapted, hopefully clearer now Mujinga (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC) The film was selected as the Dutch entry for the Best Foreign Language Film at the 90th Academy Awards, but it was not nominated. Hm? What's the difference between selection and nomination? good point, went back to the source to check and deleted "nominated" Mujinga (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Much of the "plot" section is unclear. It recounts the strict details, one by one, but never elaborates why they happen, or why it progresses the story forward. I understand that this shouldn't be a movie guide, specifying every little detail and what it does to the story, but a more logical narrative structure would work well here. It could also benefit from being less vague; the final sentence says that Layla "struggles" with the patriarchal society, but doesn't say how she struggles. Also, who's Zine, if not mentioned here? I think I understand what you are saying but I'm not sure if a precis needs to elaborate the why? Zine is simply a character in the cast, are you saying you want me to add a note saying who Zine and Abdel are, like with the other characters? Mujinga (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC) I guess I should've been more clear on that. The section is quite short as-is, and I'd like to see it revised in more detail. At present, it is pretty vague, which could confuse readers and possibly obscure your intended narrative description. A more detailed plot summary, incorporating side characters like Zine, could make the section better. However, this is only GA level, so I see why it'd be fine to leave it like it is now, but I'd be inclined to err on the side of caution with this. Nub098765 (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC) got you - and yes it is on the short side actually, so i'll expand it Mujinga (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC) expanded, still not a huge synopsis but i think i've captured all the elements. didn't mention Zine but did name the brother and best friend Mujinga (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC) De Jong had been planning to write a script based on her own youthful experiences in the Dutch squatters movement when she had a chance meeting with a Dutch woman who had converted to Islam and married a man who had then undergone a radicalisation process. This sentence structure is slightly confusing. Perhaps: De Jong initially planned to write a script based on her experiences in the Dutch squatters movement until she had a chance to meet with a Dutch woman who had converted to Islam and married a radicalised man. See what you mean, Ive rewritten it Mujinga (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC) At the time of writing, the Arab Spring was happening and in the Netherlands there was a debate triggered by the trial of Geert Wilders for inciting hatred against Dutch Moroccans. could be more precise: At the time of writing, the Arab Spring was underway, and in the Netherlands, a debate was sparked by Geert Wilders’s trial for inciting hatred against Dutch Moroccans. rejigged Mujinga (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC) ...being a co-production between these four countries. → ...co-produced by these four countries. sure, switched Mujinga (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC) The film had a cinematic release in the Netherlands on 17 November 2016. It grossed $71,804 on its opening weekend and took in total $266,010 worldwide. → The film was released theatrically in the Netherlands on 17 November 2016, grossing $71,804 on its opening weekend and $266,010 worldwide. reformulated Mujinga (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Internationally, the reviews of the film were generally favourable. → International reviews of the film were generally favourable. rejigged Mujinga (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC) As of August 2024, Layla M. had an approval rating of 100 per cent on review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, based on 10 reviews, and an average rating of 77 per cent. could be streamlined: As of August 2024, Layla M. held a 100% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 10 reviews, with an average score of 77%. reformulated Mujinga (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Screen Daily perceived an "intelligent approach to complex matters"... — I can't quite grasp this structure. Is it missing a word? Is "perceived" the right word? reads fine to me, switched perceived to observed, does that help? Mujinga (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC) I was moreso concerned about how the sentence is written. Maybe you're missing an "it as" between "perceived" (or, rather, "observed") and "an"? Because as of now, what's the subject of the sentence? Nub098765 (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC) I see yes - then observed doesn't help. maybe it's a BrEng / USEng thing? For me it reads as subject: Screen Daily; action: observes / perceives; object: an approach Mujinga (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC) Ahh, now I see it. No, I just was having a brain fart. But I still feel like something is missing. They perceived/observed an intelligent approach in what? Like what has an intelligent approach? The movie, yes, but the sentence doesn't clarify that. Though I feel like this rabbit hole has gone way too deep and it's a small nitpick. Nub098765 (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC) Otherwise the prose is quite well-written. Good job!
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Well-formatted, with no overly great whitespace.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There is, indeed, a well-formatted list of references at the bottom of the page.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Two comments: Medium is an unreliable source per WP:MEDIUM. Agree generally but in this specific case it's an interview with the film maker which happens to be presented on medium so at least at GA level I wuld argue for its inclusion Mujinga (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Fair point. The status-quo seems acceptable, for now. Nub098765 (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC) What makes Women and Hollywood reliable? This isn't an argument to remove it, but I've never seen it listed as "reliable." That's a fair point, the about section just makes it seem like a polemical blog with no editorial scrutiny. I'd argue it's not being used for anything controversial but if you want it removed, I'll take it out. Mujinga (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Please do remove it. Even if it's uncontroversial, I don't want this setting a precedent that other articles could follow the footsteps of. Nub098765 (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC) removed Mujinga (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	See my comment below.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig says 76% similarity, but that site copied Wikipedia's text. The next-most similar text is 17.6% similar, so this is fine.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Covers all main talking points of Layla M.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The text doesn't meander that much, and it overall is pretty concise, so I'd say this passes.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Neutrality's often a big issue with foreign film articles, so good job on the very neutral prose, Mujinga!
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No ongoing edit wars. Not many edits at all, actually, recently. So this definitely passes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I'm not sure IMDb would be the correct copyright holder for the poster image. Surely IMDb didn't create the actual poster? agreed, changed to "The poster art copyright is believed to belong to the distributor of the film, the publisher of the film or the graphic artist." which I've seen used at other similar images Mujinga (talk) 08:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image identifies the subject, and the caption is concise and correct.
	7. Overall assessment.

Overall, very good article! I'll perform a source spotcheck once these concerns are addressed, and I think after that, this article is good to go for GA! Good job! Thanksya, Nub098765 (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Nub098765 thanks for the comments, I've answered on everything, see what you think Mujinga (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Good evening, @Mujinga: I've left some comments. Nub098765 (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hiya @Nub098765 I've replied to your replies Mujinga (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, all looks good now. My one comment could be resolved with a snap, so I'll go ahead with the spotcheck. Nub098765 (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Spotcheck

• Refs 1 and 2 provide conflicting answers to the "box office revenue" sum. Ref 1 verifies what is said in the article, while ref 2 says $265,505. Which one's correct?
• Ref 3 does verify the claim in the prose that previous de Jong works included themes of a young girl facing oppressive circumstances. It even lists out the films you did, so good job on the no original research!
• Where does ref 5 verify that "Layla M. was shot completely on location, in Belgium, Germany, Jordan and the Netherlands, and co-produced by these four countries"?
• Ref 6 just corroborates that Wilders was on trial.
• According to ref 7, they did indeed shoot in Jordan.
• Ref 8 does corroborate its screenings at the Toronto festival and the BFI.
• Ref 9 does say that it was released on VOD and DVD on 27 March.
• Ref 10 includes a review list, which does include these two reviews.
• The Rotten Tomatoes scores are indeed 100% and 77%, respectively.
• Ref 14's link leads to a generic NYT page. It seems the Layla M. page was deleted or redirected.
• Refs 13, 15, and 16 are all good, with the quotes correctly attributed.
• Refs 17, 18, 19, and 20 all corroborate the awards it was nominated for.

This spotcheck is overall good, though there are three spots where I have made a comment. Thanksya, Nub098765 (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)