Wikipedia

Talk:The House of Flowers season 1/GA1

< Talk:The House of Flowers season 1
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Aoba47 in topic GA Review
Learn more about this page

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.

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago66 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 20:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply


I hope it is okay if I pick this up for a review. I have restarted my Spanish language studies recently, and I really should watch this show one day (especially since I have a Netflix account). Aoba47 (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Lead and infobox

edit
  • I would add alternative text for the infobox image.
  • I would add a caption to the infobox image. I am assuming that this is a poster of some kind, but some clarification would be helpful.
  • I do not think the Mexican link is entirely necessary as I believe a majority of readers are already familiar with Mexico. If for whatever reason you want to keep this link, I would go for the Mexicans article instead of the country article.
  • For this part, (with the family seeming to all part ways at the end.), I do not believe "all" is necessary as it can be assumed from context.
  • I would avoid having such a short second paragraph. The lead in general actually seems quite short to me.
  • Before I get into the body of the article, are the "Synopsis" and "Cast" sections using the show as a primary source? I am only wondering because both sections do not have citations.
  • Why does the article not include an episode table? I believe this is standard practice for an article like this, and one already exists in the List of The House of Flowers episodes.
  • Added alt text and caption; removed Mexican link and 'all'; expanded lead.
  • The Synopsis and Cast are primary source. As there is a detailed cast list at the end of every episode, this is verifiable. There is also a large footnote with a lot of cast list links in the series article, so I could pull that through if you think it needs it, but not all the characters have detail about them.
  • That is what I assumed, but I just wanted to double-check with you. I prefer doing it a different way, but it is also nice to see different ways of presenting this kind of information. Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • I generally try to include citations for as much as possible, but I think this situation is similar to how a summary/synopsis section in a film article uses the film as a primary source so I can understand how this is done and would have done the same in retrospect. Apologies for the confusion on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • I didn't want to duplicate the episodes list article, in short.
Kingsif (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Is there any particular reason for this? Again, from my experience, it is the norm to include an episode list in a season article or list like this one to represent how the information is spread out and told from episode to episode and include credits, like the director and writer. I would like to get a more detail reason for its exclusion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • No particular reason - I've added the table now. The episode list article already existed, so I just didn't think to add a table in this article. If we ask my subconscious, (I'm now trying to think of reasons to exclude a table), perhaps I thought it would unbalance the article or that there's some more value in seeing the table in context with the rest of the series' episodes, too. But no real reason. Kingsif (talk) 03:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Apologies for making you add this. I think the primary value of the table is for the credits (writers, directors, and episode titles), which may be helpful to some readers. That's just my reasoning behind it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I will go through the article section-by-section. Feel free to address any of my comments as I go. Aoba47 (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Synopsis

edit
  • This is more of a clarification question, but did Roberta kill herself at the party while other people were around or did she do it in a separate area during the party where no one could see her?
  • I would include Roberta and Michaéla's full names when you mention them for the first time.
  • For this part, (before the anniversary of their successful florists), I believe it should be "floristry shops" as "florist" refers to the person not the business. I am assuming it is the anniversary of the shop first opening, but I would clarify that in the prose.
  • The dictionary disagrees. Apparently it uses an apostrophe, though (odd for a common noun), so I've added that. As for the anniversary, I believe Virginia says since her mother founded it, which is vague enough that I wouldn't want to specify. Kingsif (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • A link for "moral purity" may be helpful if possible, especially to clarify if this is a religious thing or something else.
  • I was confused when I first read this part, (Seeing no route but a legal one, Virginia caves and asks Paulina to call her lawyer ex-husband), as I was not aware that Virginia was trying to do illegal actions to free her husband.
  • I'll clear that up - it's not that she's been trying to illegal activities (she has, but that's not why they call María José) - Virginia had kind of been expecting they could just convince the prison to let him out on her terms (Rich people?) and then realizes they actually need a lawyer and have to go through legal processes.
  • Why is María José Riquelme not directly named in that sentence?
  • For this part, (Julián uninvites boyfriend Diego), I would say "disinvites" instead.
  • Not done, because 'disinvites' is uncommon. For the longer explanation/dictionary dive (I got interested), read on. I had never come across 'disinvites' in this context before you mentioned it (I've only seen it used when talking about disinviting oneself or disinviting an unpleasant situation), so I did some research: it's rare, and less common in North America than 'uninvites'. Both are from the 17th century, and while 'disinvites' appears in US dictionaries more, it was only briefly more popular than 'un-' in the mid-1900s. (And though I don't think Merriam-Webster is a good dictionary, they have a long discussion of this matter and firmly sum-up that both are fine) Kingsif (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • I have honestly never heard of or used the word "uninvite", and it is marked as a spelling mistake on my end. Again, I will not press this issue, but I do not find the dictionary links to be particularly helpful (but that is just my perspective on the matter). Aoba47 (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • No, that's fine (both disinvite and uninvite are marked as spelling errors for me, no matter what form of English I switch to). These might be regional or social differences? Sorry about the dictionaries! I've started pulling up dictionaries to get a wider perspective on such matters, but I can see how they might be unhelpful. Kingsif (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • There is reason to apologize for the dictionaries. They are a good reference point, but I just do not find them helpful to me personally. I guess it's because I'm a native English speaker, but I do value dictionaries when learning other languages so I guess I am a hypocrite in that respect. Aoba47 (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • For this part, (at his mother's asking), I would say "at his mother's request" instead.
  • For this part, (scared of settling down with American fiancé Dominique), I would add "her" in front of "American fiancé Dominique".
  • For this part, (and starts visiting him and his sockpuppet assistant Chuy again), "sock puppet" should be two words. A link to sock puppet could be helpful here.
  • This part, (She also starts to fall for María José, her ex-spouse, again), seems unnecessarily repetitive as María José was introduced in a previous paragraph.
  • This sentence, (Having finally raised enough money at the end of the season, it goes missing and it appears that Diego stole it.), is not grammatically correct as it literally reads that "it" is the one that had "finally raised enough money at the end of the season". This needs to be revised. Aoba47 (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Overuse of "it", it seems; both interpretations are possible and correct, but I have made edits to clarify. (The synopsis was chopped down a lot in the series article so that all three seasons could fit within plot word count) Kingsif (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Main

edit
  • Both image captions should have periods since they are full sentences.
  • Please add ALT text for both images.
  • I am uncertain about the "saw some controversy" phrasing, specifically "saw" as it could be interpreted as anthropomorphism. I would use "caused" or "led to" instead.
  • I would link trans woman
  • For this part, ( with black American fiancé Dominique at the start of the season), I would add "her" in front of the phrase "black American fiancé".
  • I would rephrase this part, (due to his mistress Roberta's fraud in his name), to (due to his mistress Roberta committing fraud in his name).
  • For this part, (but appears throughout to be an omniscient taunting presence), I would say "throughout as an" instead of "throughout to be an". Also does that mean she appear as a ghost, a figment of their imaginations? I would clarify this as it is not 100% clear to me.
  • Done all the above. Adding a clarification to Roberta. While her physical appearances seem to be in Virginia's head (and Virginia did have cancer), there is a magical realism vibe, and it's never cleared up. Kingsif (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • For this part, ( the son of Roberta, Ernesto's mistress,), is a descriptive phrase for Roberta necessary as she was already introduced in the "Synopsis" section and again in this subsection?
  • Removed
  • I am uncertain of the "keeps a nose in their business" wording. I have heard of "keeping your nose out of someone else's business" and "get your nose out of my business", but I've personally never heard of this version.
  • For this part, (the young daughter of Ernesto and Roberta who is 'adopted' by Virginia), why is adopted in quotation marks?

Recurring

edit
  • I would add a link for drag queen.
  • For this part, (a blind young florist), I think it would sound better to say "a young blind florist" instead. Something about the order of the adjectives seems a little off to me, but I could be over-thinking it.
  • Why are there marks around the store name here: (who wants to buy 'La Casa de las Flores')?
  • This is more of a comment/aside, but when I was reading the part about the drag queens, it became very evident that I know absolutely nothing about Latin American culture. Out of all the celebrities, I only know Paulina Rubio lol.
  • A link for open relationship may be helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Done these. And only Paulina Rubio? They all have at least one good song, you should look them up - the only one I didn't recognize was Yuri, but I did recognize her music when it played, and I can confirm this is good, too! Kingsif (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Development and casting

edit
  • A picture of Manolo Caro may be helpful here (especially since one is available).
  • The first sentence of the first paragraph use "announced" twice. I would avoid doing this.
  • Done
  • For this part, (Suárez had acted in most other works created by Caro before the show), I would instead say the following: (Suárez had acted in most of Caro's other works before the show) to make it more concise.
Done
  • For this part, (though a review suggested that she had to "leave her comfort zone"), I would either say "reviewer" or the person's name and the publication to make it clear where this quote is coming from.
  • For this part, (The casting of Verónica Castro, referred to as "Mexican telenovela royalty",), I would clarify who refers to Castro this way.
  • Who is Manuel Betancourt? He has not been introduced at this point, and is only introduced in a later section.
  • These two parts are rather repetitive: (There was initially some controversy around the casting of Paco León) and (There was some controversy surrounding the casting). They are both repeating the same information about controversy with the casting. Aoba47 (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Filming

edit
  • I would avoid having a one-sentence paragraph.
  • Citations 14 and 15 are awkwardly placed in the first sentence and hinder readability.
  • For this sentence, (Filming was halted for several weeks in September and October 2017 after the 2017 Puebla earthquake, while waiting for the filming locations to be stabilized.), the last part, "while waiting for the filming locations to be stabilized", does not really make sense as it is not clear who is waiting. I would revise this part as it is awkwardly constructed.

Release

edit
  • This section is way too short. If nothing else could be added, I would combine this with the "Filming" subsection to have it be "Filming and release".
  • There was more marketing after the release, and the fact the character of Paulina became really popular, but I was unsure if they were fitting for the section. I guess that's one issue with Netflix shows being always available - marketing and responses can be hard to separate by season. Kingsif (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • For this part, (By November 2018 it was), add a comma between "2018" and "it".
  • Done
  • For this part, (marking it as part of the Mexican boom of new media and a Netflix hit), I think you mean "a part" instead of "as part". Also, avoid using the word "hit" as it is too informal. Aoba47 (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • No, I meant 'as part' (it says 'marking', not 'making', I think that might be the point of confusion), but changed to 'as a part' - I don't really like that phrasing because people for some reason tend to read it like 'as apart'. Anything with 'a part' I tend to avoid. Changed 'hit' to 'success', not sure if it works. Kingsif (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Critical reception

edit
  • Done
  • The lead mentions that the show was "positively received", though this section include critical reviews. The lead needs to be updated to better reflect that.
  • Changed lead to 'generally favorable reviews' - it was positively received overall, not universally, I think 'generally' reflects that?
  • I am a little confused about the structure of this section. Could you explain it to me? It jumps around a lot, like how the last paragraph is at first about the show being ideal for the summer and binge-viewing and then ends with a critique of its treatment of an interracial relationship. I could see some threads coming together, but I do not think it is a cohesive as it should be. Aoba47 (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Explanation? I combined the reviews that had been left before. Let me read it. The first paragraph seems to be 'color and music style', the second para uses this to connect to Gaona not liking the style but liking Paulina, and then onto the response to her, para 3 uses discussion of Paulina to lead into the other characters, and the fourth paragraph is stuff from reviews that came out much later. Which I can try to incorporate. Let me know any suggestions for that/all of it Kingsif (talk) 03:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • I can see your point, but to further explain my initial confusion, I was uncertain about how some points are put in multiple paragraphs, like the response to the musical sections being in both the first and second paragraphs or the response to Paulina being in the second and third paragraphs. I guess I am just more accustomed to seeing one topic of criticism being contained in a single paragraph, but I would be curious to get your response on this? Let me know if that makes any sense. I agree with all of the edits and responses you have made on here. This is really the only thing left to address before I will promote this as a GA. Aoba47 (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Accolades

edit
  • For this part, (while the show was nominated in the Best Miniseries or Television Series category, but lost), the "but lost" part is not necessary since it is clear from context that the show did not win this award.
  • Again, this part, (though he did not win), is not needed since it can generally be assumed that if a sentence says someone is nominated for something without a follow-up, then he or she did not win. Aoba47 (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

References

edit
  • I thought the same until I saw it being used across Wikipedia for media reviews. And then I looked at their YouTube and saw they do those Buzzfeed-style interviews with Academy Award winners, so they must have something. A significant improvement in the last couple years. Kingsif (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Thank you for the explanation. It should be good, especially since it only used once to talk about international coverage. I think in this context it should be deemed acceptable for use. Aoba47 (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have completed the review, and put it on hold. Let me know if anything needs further clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Aoba47: I made edits, and responded to everything above - there's some things I didn't agree on, but I've added explanations so feel welcome to respond :) Kingsif (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
I've also now added the relevant awards table. I had left it out, probably thinking the same thing as the episodes table: that it was on another page so no need. But there is a need, evidently, for readers who land here first. Kingsif (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Aoba47: I've seen some more of your comments above, and my response to all was a nod of agreement. I'll be working on the critical reception part and ping you when that's all done. Best, Kingsif (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your patience with the review and for your responses. My only question/comment is with the structure of the "Critical reception" section. I know this is cited a lot, but I always find this resource to be helpful for writing these sections. Aoba47 (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Aoba47: I've just made some edits to the critical reception. Let me know what you think, I'm open to more structuring suggestions. Kingsif (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Looks good to me. Thank you again for your patience. I will ✓ Pass this now. Hope you are having a great weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
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.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_House_of_Flowers_season_1/GA1&oldid=1216336771"