Talk:A Tree Grows in Guadalajara/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 15:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start this review :) Kingsif (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Style[edit]

  • Lead a good length for article.
  • Should broadcast originally not be "originally broadcast"? Of course, if not broadcast elsewhere, no need for originally at all?
  • The first two sentences of the lead's short synopsis (Ugly Betty centers on Betty Suarez's job at the fashion magazine MODE, where she works despite not fitting their expectations of female beauty and style. In this episode, Betty accompanies her family on a trip to Mexico and learns more about her mother. could be turned into one, introducing the background of the show within the episode context (e.g. "In the episode, Betty Suarez, a [job title] at MODE magazine despite not fitting the female ideal of beauty and style, visits Mexico with her family...")
  • I think that would make the sentence too long. Aoba47 (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can rewrite, you don't need to just smash them together (that wouldn't be great). Kingsif (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you were the one that recommended putting them into one sentence to begin with? Aoba47 (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do all the subplots need to be mentioned in the lead?
  • They are important parts of the episode so I think that they are important to mention. Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And does the Angelica Vale not-cameo need mention in the lead, either?
  • It does take up an entire paragraph in the "Production" section and the lead should cover information from the article as a whole so I think it should be included in the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the lead should also reflect what is important to the subject? It's a decent amount of interesting information on the confusion about Vale, but since she wasn't even in the episode, unless it is one of the more important parts of media coverage about the episode, it's not super important. Kingsif (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is one of the more significant parts of the episode's production that I could find sourced so I think it warrants a brief mention in the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, but including something of questionable appropriateness does affect the quality of the lead. Kingsif (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Aoba47 (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would need to be more specific on the dialogue part of the critic mention in the lead.
  • There is not really a common theme in the dialogue being praised so I am not sure how I could be more specific without going into WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: Even just "some of whom praised various lines of its dialogue for different reasons." would be clearer. Kingsif (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is even more confusing tbh. I think it would be more straightforward to say that lines of dialogue were praised rather than adding it in something vague like "for different reasons". Aoba47 (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of, the discussion of this in the critical reception section should get some actual discussion - the first and last ones (of 3) are just writing up the line and saying it was mentioned. That's all but a list.
  • Those reviews only mention that they enjoyed those lines, and do not really discuss it beyond that. Aoba47 (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then maybe say this rather than suggest they were critiquing the dialogue? "Some responses also mention lines of dialogue that were particularly enjoyed; ..." Kingsif (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot section an appropriate length
  • Made a few tweaks in plot section - Ignacio spelled three different ways could be an achievement?
  • Apologies for that. They were just typos. Aoba47 (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't Orientalist have an uppercase 'O' to show it's a theory and not something related to the orient?
  • "diasporic media" doesn't need to be in quote marks (doesn't need to be, no issue if you keep them) - but this sentence does need to tell us who (Bevan) is saying this; introducing it with These scenes are also typical of is in wikivoice and should be avoided for even scholarly opinions.
  • Similar, "unnatural lighting" doesn't need quote marks. (Both are simple noun phrases, it'd be like quoting every time the word 'episode' was used when talking about it)
  • The last two sentences of the first Analysis section paragraph could be improved by moving the rejection of realism mention first, so it flows better from the previous mention of magic realism.
  • Like with the lead, it would be better to move the background context of Betty's mother being dead to within the part about an inverse La Llorona story.
  • I am uncertain on how that would look since those sentences are already quite long. The mother is mentioned right before the La Llorana analysis so I thought they were already close enough. Aoba47 (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starting a paragraph/topic with what is otherwise a random background fact, and then doing the discussion of the episode and allowing readers to put two and two together isn't good writing unless there's lots of little bits of information needed for understanding. Here, there's just one fact for context and it doesn't need to be the first thing known. I recommend re-writing for better prose. Kingsif (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Karlyn (Rowe not part of her surname?) has already been mentioned, her full name doesn't need to be restated.
  • Here, using the term 'different' sounds like its refuting Graf - maybe just use 'another'.
  • Not sure something can be "largely mixed" - it's mixed or it isn't.
  • Is it relevant that Strachan was watching a rerun? Still the same episode, no?
  • Could have more discussion on what reviews talked about. From Strachan we have what amounts to 'it was good'; Stranksy worried about visa storyline for unknown reason and was relieved for equally unknown reason, liked the episode but not Gayheart or queerbaiting; Akhtar didn't like the fashion.
  • I have revised the part about Stranksy's comment about the visa storyline. I think his criticism of Gayheart and queerbaiting is already clear. Akhtar mostly criticized the show's fashion, specifically Hilda and Marc. I am not sure how I can be more specific without naming certain outfits. Aoba47 (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd go for naming the outfits. Kingsif (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I am not sure if that is helpful. But since I have no interest in completing this, I will leave that to whoever edits the article in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentioned needing discussion of the quotes more already.
  • The sources do not provide more discussion on the quotes. Aoba47 (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs work I've cleaned it up, it doesn't need a copyedit IMO, but still a lot of things to work on. Particularly (but certainly not exclusively), critical reception section.

Coverage[edit]

  • That would need to be covered by a third-party, reliable source, and I have not found any that do that. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was looking for you and came across this article - it also mentions that the episode is a season finale? Is that true? Kingsif (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I've gathered. Sources seem to conflict with even themselves on whether it's #21, #22 or #23! Kingsif (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also mentions that it was the resolution of a longer story arc about immigration, which should be mentioned. Maybe I can leave you with the source to expand the article, now that I'm reading it... Kingsif (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a dissertation so I am uncertain if it is really usable on Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen them (it's a PhD dissertation/thesis - they're highly qualified scholars and we have a 'cite thesis' template designed for them) in featured articles, I think you're good. Here's another source that has more analysis, if you're interested. Kingsif (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am always a little uncertain on using dissertations, but I will leave that up to whoever edits the article in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who do Moreno, Machado and Gayheart play in the episode? Should be mentioned in body.
  • Any reports on particular filming arrangements to represent Mexico?
  • I could not find any coverage on the filming. Aoba47 (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any significance to mentioning that Hilda is fluent in Spanish? It's not analysis and doesn't affect the analysis of Betty's non-fluency.
  • Could mention that Betty's mother being dead is an established thing, not something revealed in this episode?
  • I am confused on this point. I do not see how the wording implies that it was something revealed in this episode? Aoba47 (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it's just given as a statement without being contextualized in terms of this episodes - this is something the reader has to work out from discussion that follows. You are very familiar with the topic and your writing, other people aren't. It's better to move the info. Kingsif (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says that reviews were mixed, but since there is little discussion and the quotes are positive, this doesn't seem to be the case.
  • Again, I am confused by this point. The paragraph with that section has one positive review, one mixed review, and one negative review so the reviews are mixed. The dialogue parts are put into a separate paragraph so it is not referring to that. Aoba47 (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Describe what the reviews say. And a fashion review isn't exactly a negative review. Kingsif (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is pretty clear that review is negative when it says "criticized the fashion". I have rarely ever seen "criticized" used in a positive manner. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minimal review coverage, even with just the current sources it could be expanded.
  • I am pretty certain that I have found all of the reviews for this episode. I also do not see how the sources could be expanded further without adding undue weight or just rambling about them. I have tried to get the general idea of their reviews. Aoba47 (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can only suggest looking at the critical reception sections of better articles. Without this improved, it's not at GA quality. Kingsif (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fail currently, there's a lot of obvious gaps (and one irrelevant thing included). Particularly, the critical reception section needs work.

Illustration[edit]

  • Only one image, however at wikisize it does not seem to actually show "a "visual string of stereotypes all jumbled together"." Is there a clearer image showing this that it could be replaced with?
  • I included that specific image because it was specifically mentioned by one of the critics, which can be seen here. Aoba47 (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I see you've updated the caption; I understood it fine, I said that it's too small to see anything relevant. It just looks like any random dusty street, no donkeys or chickens or pyramid(?) in sight, with an old car only if you squint. As a non-free image, it can't be any bigger or clearer like it can in a book. It may be mentioned, but it's not adding anything for the reader here. It would be better if you described it. Kingsif (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable guest stars could warrant images.
  • I do not think it is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs attention

Neutrality[edit]

  • Seems fine.
  • Pass

Verifiability[edit]

  • Everything cited in line
  • Sources generally look good, some are inaccessible, though
  • Pass on good faith

Stability[edit]

  • History looks fine
  • Pass

Copyright[edit]

  • Check looks fine
  • One copyright screenshot - here there's an issue in that it doesn't seem to fulfill its purpose, so it could be removed
  • Needs attention

Overall[edit]

  • on hold Some things need work - I'd opt to remove the image, maybe replace it with a commons one of Moreno for being a notable guest star. As mentioned above, though work needed in most of the article, the critical response is particularly weak. Kingsif (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can just fail this. I have no interest in working on it further. Aoba47 (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: I must ask, since I've seen your eager ethic at FAC, why you nominated for GA if you didn't want to do more work on this article? Kingsif (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am honestly just not a fan of the review. I disagree with some of the points you are raising. I think some are good, like linking the dissertation and points about the analysis section, but I find others, particularly about the reception section, to not be particularly helpful. I was also just rubbed the wrong way with comments like "Ignacio spelled three different ways could be an achievement?". If I am not enjoying this, then I see no reason to continue. Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: Oh, sorry about that. I try to make reviews fun by including sarcastic comments like that, and it seems to have done the opposite. What can I say, I found the reception section weak - giving a one-line overview isn't at GA standard for my interpretation of the coverage criteria. You can ask for another reviewer if you like, sorry man. Kingsif (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's all good. You can just go ahead and fail it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. But I might just take the article up myself now I've been reading those articles! Kingsif (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Tree_Grows_in_Guadalajara/GA1&oldid=929436598"