Talk:Happier Than Ever: A Love Letter to Los Angeles/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

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 toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: VersaceSpace (talk · contribs) 14:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Picking this up for review as requested here. —VersaceSpace 🌃 14:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I completely forgot about this, but I'll try to get through as much as possible now. —VersaceSpace 🌃 06:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox[edit]

  • Here and across the article, you do not need to include the full title of the film wherever you refer to it. You could cut it down to Happier Than Ever or A Love Letter to Los Angeles
    • I'm a bit torn on this one. The article references use Happier Than Ever as shorthand, but that also is the name of the album which the article has to discuss in multiple occasions. So that's gonna cause confusion. On the other hand, A Love Letter as far as I can tell is not used as shorthand in lots of sources. Do we just IAR what the WP:SUBTITLES section says and just go for the latter option? ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
      📝 "Don't get complacent..."       14:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine with me. Ambiguity was definitely not the end goal when that MOS guideline was written, so I'd say ignore it. —VersaceSpace 🌃 06:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is  Done
  • "multiple other musicians, who include her brother" → "multiple other musicians, including her brother"
  • "without a live audience due to the COVID-19 pandemic" can be safely removed since you haven't elaborated on why there would be an audience to begin with. And I feel like you did that would be much detail for the lead.
    • Resolved the above two
  • "some of whom deemed it a film that Eilish's fans would enjoy"... this is usually something critics say when giving a lukewarm review, so I suggest changing this.
    • Removed entirely

Plot[edit]

  • "slowly takes off her clothes" → "slowly takes her clothes off"
    • Not sure about this suggestion since both sound alright to me, but  Done. Doesn't really hurt

Cast[edit]

  • prioritize the instrumentalists with articles in the list
    • Alright then. I was going for how often they appeared in the film but this is fair enough I guess

Production[edit]

  • "Billie Eilish was born in and spent her formative years in Los Angeles". OK, so I think you're just supposed to use her last name here. Also this seems like a wordy way to say she was born and raised in LA.
    • Trimmed
  • I think the last period goes outside the GMA quote.
  • If a clear period where Billie contacted Rodriguez cannot be established, remove the sentence.
    • Why not? It's not the clearest, sure, but either way, it helps with creating a timeline described throughout this article. April/May 2021 is when she contacted the directors, June is when Disney contacted the animation studio, July was principal photography, etc. I cannot see any strong argument for removing this - when the relevant people first contacted each other is pretty essential detail about a film's development, I would say.
  • Not seeing the relevance of "Rain on Me"
    • Fair enough, removed
  • "The daughter decided" → "His daughter decided"
    • Done

Marketing and release[edit]

  • "many immediately compared" → "many commentators compared"
    • Clarified
  • "Then, A Love Letter to Los Angeles premiered worldwide on September 3, 2021" - not sure the first word is necessary.
    • Removed
  • "available to watch with Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos." - I think you watch it in Dolby, not with.
    • Good catch; rewritten

Reception[edit]

  • "told via the album's lyrics" → "told through the album's lyrics"
    • That did seem like odd wording to me. Changed
  • also the sentence including the above words is a run-on sentence
    • While I don't see a run-on sentence issue, I do see a lengthy sentence issue, so I have rewritten it somewhat
  • "I'd never treat me this s–tty" → "I'd never treat me this shitty" per WP:NOTCENSORED
    • Spelled out
  • Period goes outside the quotation throughout this section
  • CTRL + F shows me seven results with .", so those should be "..
    • I know you put this under the "Reception" header but I tried my best to apply logical quotations throughout the whole thing. However when you Ctrl+F ." please keep in mind that "When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark." For example, there's simply too much at work conceptually to dismiss it as [such]. is a complete sentence. But as with everything else that Eilish does by way of visual accompaniment, there’s simply too much at work conceptually to dismiss it as a mere gift to fans. is the original quote. [such] replaces 'a mere gift to fans' here. The periods for both excerpts end at the same spot, so the punctuation goes inside the quotation marks.
  • "during the Happier Than Ever, The World Tour" doesn't make sense
    • Reworded

References[edit]

  • Only the first instance of each publication should be wiki-linked. (Ctrl+F Billboard, Collider, Uproxx, Rolling Stone, NYT, Deadline Hollywood)
    • MOS:DUPLINK is the relevant guideline here, but this ain't in the GA criteria this should not really be a concern for a GAN. Either way, the guideline states that "Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article."
  • None of these seem to be unreliable, except Austin Chronicle comes up orange on my reliability-script for whatever reason.

General comments[edit]

  • Copyvio score looks good at 31.5%
  • Putting this  On hold. —VersaceSpace 🌃 16:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the helpful review @VersaceSpace. I have done my best to address your comments - I rebutted some of them a fair bit, so please read carefully. Also, I'd like to ask if you already spotchecked some sources to ensure compliance with verifiability and OR policies ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
      📝 "Don't get complacent..."       16:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your Power, of course I did some spot-checks, and as far as I can tell there aren't any violations...unless there's something you'd like to show me? If not I'm ready to pass this as your rebuttals are fair. —VersaceSpace 🌃 17:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, the main reason I asked was because I wanted to know if the reception section provided an accurate summary of the reviews, without any misrepresentations or half-truths 🤷‍♀️ it took me a long time to write that from scratch and I ended up writing a lot of words, so I imagine something would have slipped through the cracks. But I'm glad to know that's not the case, I hope ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
          📝 "Don't get complacent..."           17:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I mean, the reviews section gives a good mix of positive and negative opinions. It's harder because, unlike album reviews, there's no numerical score. So you did a good job representing the authors' opinions. —VersaceSpace 🌃 17:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✓ Pass —VersaceSpace 🌃 17:29, 7 August 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Happier_Than_Ever:_A_Love_Letter_to_Los_Angeles/GA1&oldid=1102934074"