Jump to content

Talk:Winter Spring Summer or Fall

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

Help: more info RS?

[edit]

Hi all. There has been some information that I have found regarding this film and I want to know if they meet WP:RS and WP:N:

  • Lakeshore Records as record label for the soundtrack (as per their official website)
  • Tracklist and personnel as per the Original Motion Picture Soundtrack available to stream
  • Evangiline's music video on YouTube
  • Some security issues when fans recognized them during filming, after the release of Wednesday (See the transcript on YouTube)
  • Crew member got ill (See the transcript on YouTube)
  • Ortega herself was looking for this kind of genre, and she had been Paulsen's first and dream choice for this role (See the transcript on YouTube)
  • Release got delayed due to some allegations against Percy White Hynes, which he denied
  • One of the sources that I have linked states that this had been a little-known film of Ortega, means no proper marketing campaign...?
  • Box Office Mojo giving theatrical gross from one area only
  • Mention the term "Premium video on demand"

Furthermore, I have run some wiki-transcripts here in this page, they say that Forbes isn't a reliable source, is it correct? Although, I can see it requires subscription. Also, should the article needs to be expanded to 10x to qualify for WP:GA/WP:FA? I assume there are points here that can be featured on "WP:DYK" since I can see that Jenna Ortega's article is a GA:

  • Wednesday pair reunion
  • Filming took place right around Wednesday's release
  • Jenna Ortega as an executive producer
  • Ortega's first romantic role

Although this is just a new film, with not so good critical reception, and yet to be nominated in any awards, can someone please help or guide to expand the article? To the notice, I used to be an active contributor on film articles and had previously (co-)contributed on GAs like Jungle Cruise, Olaf's Frozen Adventure, and Dear Zindagi. Thank you! M. Billoo 20:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "transcript", M.Billoo2000, I think you mean what I'd call "interview". Interviews and Youtube are both problematic as sources. For interviews, see this; for Youtube, see this. For Forbes, see this. I don't know what you mean by "wiki-transcript", and the history of this (talk) page is uneventful. I think you've conflated GA eligibility with DYK eligibility; anyway, a considerable and/or rapid expansion isn't necessary to qualify an article as either "Good" or "Featured". -- Hoary (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary: Thank you for your response.
  • Yes, I have studied policied like ELP and IV, and that's why I was concerned upon finding more info.
  • "Transcript" meant the subtitle part from any YT video (interviews in this case), which can also be copied in text form.
  • Wiki-transcript tools: User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js, User:Headbomb/unreliable.js (Sorry)
  • Sorry, it might have created confusion, but I am still interested to contribute if this article can any time get up to any of DYK, GA, or FA.
M. Billoo 22:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Went through RSP as well. M. Billoo 22:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about the film aside from what I read in the article; but what I read in the article doesn't suggest that the film is material for an FA. In order for the article to qualify for DYK, you (or somebody, or some people) would have to bulk it up considerably, and quickly (and well, of course). I think that it's already too long for such weight gain to be a realistic goal. Aiming for GA seems far more sensible. In your place, I'd first look for newspaper/magazine reviews of the film. Good luck! -- Hoary (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20-minute assessment

[edit]

@M.Billoo2000: Hi! Here's a 20-minute assessment of this article, as requested:

Not the exact term is used in the film, but its definition obviously suits here. M. Billoo 03:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a controversial term that I don't feel is appropriate for an encyclopedic article, but not strongly enough to remove it myself. Spookyaki (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right, but I would only defend it because how strongly it feels when one watches the film. When the girl is trying to propose, the boy friendzones her, making her emotional breakdown. At this point, I may have no problem if someone else removes. M. Billoo 02:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The language feels a bit too informal at points. For example, After she had done Holidate... feels very blunt and and little... Sloppy? You could say something like After she starred in Holidate... I have made some tweaks to some of the more egregious examples, but just something to keep in mind. Spookyaki (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed
  • If you can provide external citations for the cast, that would be nice. However, from what I understand, the movie itself should count as a sufficient source, provided the cast list is in the credits. Spookyaki (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • To improve the prose, I would recommend limiting use of the passive voice. This isn't an absolute rule, but the passive voice sometimes leads to unnecessarily complicated prose, sometimes prose that is too timid. In the worst cases it can lead to tortured, confusing, incomprehensible sentences. The latter isn't the case here, but clauses like Reportedly, this has been Ortega's first romantic role... could be rephrased as Reportedly, this was Ortega's first romantic role... Spookyaki (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed
  • Reportedly, this has been Ortega's first romantic role and she has also served as an executive producer.—Actually, I'm not really sure understand this sentence at all. Consider rephrasing. Spookyaki (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This one is not self-confirmed by the actress. However, in the very next sentence, it is written that she is not fond of this genre. M. Billoo 03:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now that it's in active voice, this sentence is more understandable. Spookyaki (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few cases where the language is vague in a confusing way. For example, ...which later became the second most-watched series on the platform. What platform? Or over the time... What time? Spookyaki (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed
Not sure, but what I could assume after studying the online gossips is that because of the allegations against the lead actor and stepping back of the lead actress from all the marketing campaigns due to her career shift. M. Billoo 03:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes refs used only as WP:IV or facts. M. Billoo 03:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, it's the facts that would be the problem. They have to be established as facts using reliable sources. Spookyaki (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only facts: film premiere date 6 June 2024, and the term PVOD. Hard to find any other news source giving these facts. Otherwise, Getty Images, Alamy, etc. may show the premiere date. M. Billoo 02:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got. I think the plot summary is pretty good. The prose for the latter sections could use some punching up and the use of the Lammers articles should be reviewed, but with some work, I do think this could get to GA. Spookyaki (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Spookyaki: Thank you for your time in some helpful suggestions. I also request you to please look through the above section on this talk page. M. Billoo 03:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Winter_Spring_Summer_or_Fall&oldid=1318979917"