Wikipedia:Peer review/Lost in Translation (film)/archive1
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
| Toolbox |
|---|
Lost in Translation is a 2003 film written and directed by Sofia Coppola. It stars Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson. I am listing the article for peer review prior to submitting it for featured article consideration. Thanks to all for any feedback offered. NTox · talk 05:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
[edit]- The "Media data and Non-free use rationale" box for the film screenshot needs to be completed. I am happy that you included this shot as it is quite iconic and inspired a lot of critical analysis. I remember reading a third-wave feminism article on three of Coppola's films, including this one, and it had a part on this shot. I cannot remember the article's name though for the life of me ><. The article is probably already cited in here though to be fair lol.
- For the Sofia Coppola image, I would change this part of the caption (promoting Lost in Translation in 2003) to specify that she is attending the film's premiere at the 2003 Toronto Film Festival. I think the current phrasing is a little too nebulous.
- This may be silly, but for this image caption, (Murray in 2014 and Johansson in 2008), I'd specify (left) and (right) as I have seen this commonly done when multiple images are put together in this manner. It would avoid any confusion for readers that jump to certain parts of the article or just scanned through the images.
- For this image caption, (Shibuya Crossing at night. The production often used bystanders as extras during shooting.), I would avoid having the sentence fragment at the start. It is a very nit-picky complaint, but it just looks off to me to have a sentence fragment with a period.
- Should the section title "Criticism" be a little more specific to mention that the criticism is about the film's representation of Japanese culture?
- Good question. I'll avoid any modification now but will remain interested if others have thoughts on this too. NTox · talk
- I was just curious because just looking at the table of contents, I do not think the difference between "Critical response" and "Criticism" is immediately clear. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Good question. I'll avoid any modification now but will remain interested if others have thoughts on this too. NTox · talk
- I am a little confused by what "the latter" is referencing in this part: (The latter is briefly featured by Coppola in a scene in which Bob and Charlotte are watching the film on television while drinking sake.) I have only seen the former/latter phrasing uses in the context of two items, but three films are named in the previous sentence.
- I have a question about the "Cast" section. A source like Rotten Tomatoes has a more extensive cast listing, so I am curious on the rationale here? I've never actually seen this film (even though I'm a huge Coppola fan), so is this just the main cast?
- The film does have a pretty sparse cast. It is very focused on the central characters of Murray and Johansson. Ribisi and Faris play minor roles and everyone else appears relatively briefly. I did try to follow WP:CASTLIST as best as possible, which recommends listing 'the most relevant actors and roles' according to such factors as billing status and coverage in sources. Currently, everyone in the poster's billing block is included with the addition of Lambert, as she was mentioned several times in the literature about the film. I have not seen anyone else substantively discussed in sources. However, if there is a compelling case to add anyone else I'm not opposed to it. NTox · talk
- That is understandable. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- The film does have a pretty sparse cast. It is very focused on the central characters of Murray and Johansson. Ribisi and Faris play minor roles and everyone else appears relatively briefly. I did try to follow WP:CASTLIST as best as possible, which recommends listing 'the most relevant actors and roles' according to such factors as billing status and coverage in sources. Currently, everyone in the poster's billing block is included with the addition of Lambert, as she was mentioned several times in the literature about the film. I have not seen anyone else substantively discussed in sources. However, if there is a compelling case to add anyone else I'm not opposed to it. NTox · talk
- In the lead and the body of the article, I'd specify the year The Virgin Suicides was released. I think the year is important to note to add a timeline to when she started forming the film's story.
- For this part, (Fumihiro Hayashi's karaoke rendition of God Save the Queen,), the song title should be in quotation marks.
- Is there a reason why "set pieces" is put in italics in this part: (so as to function as "audio-visual set pieces")?
- Those italics are actually in the original source itself. I did leave them in as MOS:CONFORM advises to 'generally preserve bold and italics' in quotations. I now see that WP:MOS#Italics within quotations recommends I should add [emphasis in original] after the quote since this is unclear. Personally, however, I would rather drop the italics completely. I wonder if you think that would be acceptable, given that the MOS seems to allow some exceptions where it only says to 'generally' retain the formatting. NTox · talk
- I would think that it is okay to drop the italics. I am assuming the publication used italics as emphasis, but since the quote was taken from the greater context of the article, I think it can safely be removed, but it may be good to wait for other editors' opinions on this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Those italics are actually in the original source itself. I did leave them in as MOS:CONFORM advises to 'generally preserve bold and italics' in quotations. I now see that WP:MOS#Italics within quotations recommends I should add [emphasis in original] after the quote since this is unclear. Personally, however, I would rather drop the italics completely. I wonder if you think that would be acceptable, given that the MOS seems to allow some exceptions where it only says to 'generally' retain the formatting. NTox · talk
- I would find replacements for References 70 and 109. IMDb is not a good source for Wikipedia.
- I have never seen the ISSN citation style for magazine references. I am not saying it is wrong, but I have not seen it used before. I am personally uncertain of the value of having links to WorldCat.
- I did see a featured film article using ISSNs but agree that they're not critical. I know that WP:ISSN lists some possible benefits of including them and advises not to remove them if they're already there, but I'm not opposed to revisiting them if it's best. NTox · talk
- Thank you for the explanation. There is nothing wrong with using the ISSN formatting. I was just curious on your reasoning. It is genuinely interesting to see how citations can be formatted differently. Thank you for the link as that does answer my question. Aoba47 (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- I did see a featured film article using ISSNs but agree that they're not critical. I know that WP:ISSN lists some possible benefits of including them and advises not to remove them if they're already there, but I'm not opposed to revisiting them if it's best. NTox · talk
- I would archive the web sources to avoid link rot and death. Something like the IABot could be helpful with this. It is not a requirement for the FAC though.
- Thanks for the tip. I went ahead and ran the bot on the article. However, are you recommending that I run the bot's optional feature that archives all of the web links in the article, including the non-dead ones? NTox · talk
- I would recommend archiving even the non-dead sources as these links may die in the future. I doubt they will since this is a pretty major film, but I always prefer just in case. Again, it is not necessary for a FAC, but just nice to do just in case. Aoba47 (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip. I went ahead and ran the bot on the article. However, are you recommending that I run the bot's optional feature that archives all of the web links in the article, including the non-dead ones? NTox · talk
- I would add a citation for Notes 10 and 15.
- Thanks for pointing that out. Added a citation for note 10. About note 15, since the term 'wide release' does not always have a universal definition among sources, my goal in phrasing it as "wide release" is defined here was to clarify that the article is itself using the definition of 600 theaters, which seems to be the number sources most often use. In that sense, I didn't intend to write that 600 theaters is definitively what 'wide release' means, just that the article itself is using that number. Feel free to let me know if you think we should make a more definitive statement about how it's defined. NTox · talk
- Thank you for the response. The point about the "wide release" makes sense to me, but I just pointed it out as I could see someone bringing it up at the FAC. I do not have a strong opinion about it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. Added a citation for note 10. About note 15, since the term 'wide release' does not always have a universal definition among sources, my goal in phrasing it as "wide release" is defined here was to clarify that the article is itself using the definition of 600 theaters, which seems to be the number sources most often use. In that sense, I didn't intend to write that 600 theaters is definitively what 'wide release' means, just that the article itself is using that number. Feel free to let me know if you think we should make a more definitive statement about how it's defined. NTox · talk
I hope these comments are helpful. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, @Aoba47: thanks so much for taking the time to read the article. I appreciate all of your feedback and hope you get a chance to watch the film sometime soon. I made some modifications as you suggested and responded to a few points. I hope you are having an excellent start of your weekend. NTox · talk 09:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- I am glad that I could help. I unfortunately do not have the time to do a more thorough review of the article so apologies for that. I hope you are having a great weekend so far too! Aoba47 (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)