Talk:The House of Flowers season 3/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Basic stuff

• In the lead, remove the parathesis around "(Jackson)". Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• No, she is credited as both Mara Vargas and Mara Vargas Jackson. Kingsif (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• That still doesn't explain the use of the parathesis. You can either remove them completely, erase the last name, or add quotation marks around "Jackson" but overall the parathesis is not necessary. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Archive all archivable sources. (I would suggest using this tool) Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'm changing this response, which noted that if you used the tool you'd realize it's been intermittently down, to instead say that you clearly didn't bother to check the sources since they're all already archived. It only makes you look bad at reviewing. Kingsif (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Overall, there's only one source that needs sourcing, and it's "Romero 2020a." Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• In the "External links" section, move "The House of Flowers on Netflix" above "The House of Flowers on IMDb"

• Why? Kingsif (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Per WP:ELCITE, If several external links are listed and the subject of the article... has an official website, it is normal practice to place the link to that site at the top of the list. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Synopsis

• Change "The gang take LSD" to "The gang takes LSD" by adding an "s". Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• No. Maybe "The gang all take LSD" would be clearer, but "The gang" functions like "The people" here - it's clear it's referring to the members of the gang as individuals, not as some massive unit that singularly does LSD. Kingsif (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Change "Alejo leaves when he see them kiss" to "Alejo leaves when he sees them kiss" by adding an "s". Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Done Kingsif (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Add "In the present," to the beginning of the sentence starting with: "María José arrives after being alerted by Alejo" Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Not necessary, unless you want to argue for being confused. The paragraphs set in the "alt" 1979 timeline are opened as such, it's assumed those that don't are the present. Additionally, neither María José or Alejo are in the 1979 timeline, again obviously. It would be unnecessary extra words. Kingsif (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Ending a paragraph with "Virginia realizes she is pregnant" and then starting a new one with "María José arrives after being alerted by Alejo" is purposely confusing to readers and newcomers who have never watched the show. It makes it sound like they're in the same timeline, and why I'm asking for the addition of "In the present." Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• The following sentences need rewording:
  • "...which prevents Salomón from performing when Virginia wants to lose her virginity – she turns to Pato for it."
    • Should be reworded to "which prevents Salomón from performing when Virginia wants to lose her virginity, so she turns to Pato for it." This is just general wording and grammar. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "...and sends Rosita into a Britney breakdown."
    • Should be reworded to explain what a "Britney breakdown" is. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• 1. those are all fragments 2. why might help Kingsif (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• I have added the reasons for the changes below each sentence. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Merge the following sentences:
  • "Ernesto gives the cabaret to the drag queens. Diego is persuaded by his family to attend gay conversion therapy, to fulfill his dream of being a parent."

• Since they're unrelated, no. Kingsif (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Production

• Change the first "Caro" in the first paragraph to "The House of Flowers creator Manolo Caro". Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Done Kingsif (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Change "he is a big fan" to "he was a big fan". Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• No, it's not like he's dead. Kingsif (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• The sentence is referring to something he said, so it should be in past-tense. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• The following sentence needs rewording:
  • "...he had planned the ending of the series back when he was first writing it three years earlier".
    • This sentence is semi-confusing. "He had planned the ending... when he was first writing it" is just bad wording overall. The sentence should be changed to "he had planned the show's ending back when he initially created the series three years earlier." Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• "He added that he "[does] not regret having chosen [the] character, [because he] needed it as a human being who needed to discover these things, and also because it is a very special message for people."

• The addition of multiple words in the quote makes it stop being a quote, so it should be reworded to "He added that he didn't regret choosing the character, as he "needed it as a human being who needed to discover these things, and also because it is a very special message for people." Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Again, WHY?! Kingsif (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Once again, I have added the reasons below each sentence. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Change "Caro and Burr describe the filming" to "Caro and Burr described the filming" by adding a "d". Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Change "...and recall that scenes" to "...and recalled that scenes" by adding an "ed". Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Both done. Kingsif (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• In the filming paragraph (the last sentence), "the cast breaking out in laughter" links to "Corpsing", a British slang term. Change the link from "Corpsing" to "Breaking character". Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• No. Breaking character and corpsing are very different, and corpsing is not British slang, it's an industry term for laughing during a take. You don't know what you're on about, do you? Kingsif (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• This is from the "Corpsing" article: "Corpsing is British theatrical slang for unintentionally laughing during a non-humorous performance... In North American TV and film, this is considered a variation of breaking character." As this is a North American production, it should link to breaking character. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Release and marketing

• Section change
  • Change the section's name to "Marketing and release".
  • Move the third and fourth paragraphs to the beginning, and the first and second paragraphs to the end of the section. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Done Kingsif (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Change "The third season premiered in its entirety on April 23, 2020." to "The third and final season of The House of Flowers premiered in its entirety on April 23, 2020." Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• That's not necessary at all. Kingsif (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry for adding it. I added the "Section change" after this suggestions, so I'm removing it with a strikethrough. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Change "By April 2020, before the premiere of the final season" to "Prior to the season's release," Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• No, the actual month is important; if it wasn't there it would be easy to argue it's not specific enough and could be vaguely referring to any period before. Netflix also releases that data per month, so it's also relevant. Kingsif (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Change "suggested this may be due" to "suggested it was due". Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• That's grammatically incorrect because of the sentence structure. We could restructure the sentence if you really like that phrasing, but it would be effectively pointless since there's no issue with the meaning or comprehension. Kingsif (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, "this may be due" is grammatically incorrect as this already happened. It should be changed to "suggested it was due" to go along with the past-tense structure. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Change "...and that the day's symbols of the book and the rose may connect to the show's themes" to "...and that the day's symbols may connect to the show's overall themes." Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Why be less specific? Why? Why are you suggesting leaving this out when it is the actual link to the content of the show! Kingsif (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Change "...and is set in 1979 following Virginia, Ernesto, Carmela, and Salomón" to "which followed the characters of Virginia, Ernesto, Carmela, and Salomón in 1979". Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Again, would need to change the sentence structure for that to pass grammar. Maybe learn grammar. Also, a trailer is a piece of media as much as TV/film and therefore the "plot" part should be present tense, i.e. it would be "follows the characters..." Kingsif (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• The sentence that ends with "of the poster matched graphics with the video" contains a reference that is reused at the end of the paragraph. Remove the first use of the reference, so it isn't reused. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Or we can follow the MOS that recommends having references after quotations. Maybe. Kingsif (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Change "happened shortly after its end" to "happened shortly after the season's release". Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• I've taken what I assume is your reasoning here and written a better form. Kingsif (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Critical reception

• Change "Puentes positively compared" to "Patricia Puentes positively compared" by adding her first name. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Change "Of the new characters, Wilson finds" to "Of the new characters, Jonathon Wilson found". Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Done both Kingsif (talk) 03:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Captions

• Change "Isabel Burr (right) looks similar to a young Verónica Castro (left); the actresses play Virginia de la Mora at different ages." to "Because of their similarities, Verónica Castro (left) and Isabel Burr (right) portrayed the character of Virginia de la Mora at different ages." Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Why? And no, too, not happening. It's an image caption, it's actually preferable to make it image-focused. Kingsif (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• The current caption sounds like trivia. How is "Isabel Burr (right) looks similar to a young Verónica Castro (left)" a preferable caption? It should be changed to contain an informative structure such as "Isabel Burr (right) and Verónica Castro (left) play the character of Virginia de la Mora at different ages," or something similar that doesn't sound like trivia. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Notes

• @Kingsif: Here's my assessment. Complete all the improvements and this article will be passed! Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Some Dude From North Carolina: Before I really look at the comments, here's some advice on doing a GAN review: don't make all your comments "change X into Y", and don't demand the nominator "complete" everything you've listed. First, it's arrogant, but more importantly, it isn't useful. It doesn't explain why you're giving the recommendations and it doesn't leave room for discussion - which is just as important in the review. Ideally, "X to Y" comments should only be for grammatical and idiomatic issues; it's much better to ask for a rephrasing to address a certain issue if you find a sentence hard to follow (etc.), without saying what you think that rephrasing should be. That's basically editing the article yourself by proxy, so it's not actually providing a review and can also effectively tip you over the line of being too large a contributor to complete the review without bias towards the content you produced. Where practical, it's also good to refer to the GA criteria or align your comments with these. And the tone you take should be helpful, not demanding.

I'll look over your comments and see what I think makes sense and do my best edits to improve the article. Kingsif (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Some Dude From North Carolina: You may have gathered this from the responses above, but a lot of your comments are trash, by the way. In the friendliest way (I'm sarcastic, it's not mean), you instruct a lot of things that just don't need to - and in some cases really should not - be done, as well as not really going into depth on parts of the criteria. It's like an incomplete review that mostly focuses on how you want things to be phrased. When phrasing is only one, and relatively minor due to how easy it is to change, concern of a GA. A lot of this article has been split from the GA about the show, so I'm confident it meets the technical criteria, but it would have been good for you to comment on these so it doesn't look like you haven't done that part of the review. Additionally, it's nice to make the reviews positive. When I do them, and I've done a lot, I note when things are good or parts I think stand out (unless I know the nominator likes it quick and dry), so it's not just a list of negatives/need-to-be-improved's. Maybe read other GAN reviews before doing them. Kingsif (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Some Dude From North Carolina: I just got notified of a fail from the article talk page. It would have been nice if you'd notified me when you responded, a ping or message would have worked. And it is just courtesy to give a ping or message as a last chance before failing. Although I suppose if I had to try walk you through reviewing already you wouldn't have known these things; best for you to learn before trying to do any more reviews for certain, then. Kingsif (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)