Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ave Maryam/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 December 2020 [1].

Ave Maryam[edit]

Nominator(s): GeraldWL 14:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If heaven is undecided for me,
why should I meddle in your anguish?

This is a film I watched during the screening late November, and on Netflix when it's released during this pandemic. A story about a sister who fell into the wrong path and fell in love with a pastor, whilst trying to find herself. As a Catholic, it feels amazing to be represented in the Indonesian cinema. I started this article as a rough translation from http://www.id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ave_Maryam, which is a good article there. Then research plays in the game, and I started finding more information, and then realized that this can be a decent FA. I did copyedits, helped by Larry Hockett, and rechecked the article with the criteria; it seems to be just fine. Although I have a feeling that it still doesn't. Constructive criticisms and suggestions are really welcomed. GeraldWL 14:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Drive by comments by Aoba47[edit]

  • Unfortunately, I am currently unable to do a full review, but I am uncertain if this is ready for a FAC after looking at the "Theme and reception" section. I would two separate sections on the film's theme and its critical reception. For the latter, I would encourage you to read WP:RECEPTION for advice on how to write a critical reception section. I would avoid having single-sentence paragraphs like this one, CNN Indonesia and Tabloid Bintang criticized the lack of emotion in the portrayal of Maryam, as they make the prose too choppy. I would think this section would benefit from a great deal of rewriting and revision.
    Aoba47, I removed that one-line paragraph, as well as several other generic stuff. I am also kind of weirded out by how that section turned out, as many film articles which are more popular than this has a smaller section. Whilst writing, I also tried following WP:RECEPTION on the "A said B D said C" thing, but found out that not all stuff can be made customly. I think the section is already fine, considering it combines discussion on its themes and reception of the film. GeraldWL 02:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response. Instead of removing that line completely, it would have been better to integrate that information elsewhere in the section, as it had useful information. Anyway, I do not see the benefit of combining discussions on the film's themes and its critical reception in a single section. It visually presents the reader with a rather large wall of text, and I just do not think it is the best strategy to present either pieces of information. Other film articles have smaller sections because the separate themes and critical reception in separate sections (or subsections).
I included the CNN Indonesia thing at its respective paragraph (2). The reviews on the film also discuss the themes of the film, that's why I combined the two stuff. Considering the combination, I now feel the length is fine.
My issue with this section is mostly about the structure not the length. Just because reviews also talk about the film's themes is not a strong enough reason to put both items in the same section rather than giving both their proper attention separately.
To clarify some of my critiques, I will use the first paragraph of this section as an example. It jumps around between seemingly unrelated topics (from how the film was a response to Indonesian films primarily featuring Muslim themes to the clothing palette and design to another part on midlife crises). I am not sure what this sentence, Despite the Catholic theme, only Olga is a real Catholic: Chicco is a Protestant, while Ertanto and Maudy are Muslims, is really trying to say or why it is included here. The last sentence raises the point about midlife crises being a theme, but does not provide any explanation to clarify this point.
Since we fundamentally disagree about an important section of the article, I will leave this up to other reviewers. As I have said above, I am unable to do a full review, and just wanted to point out something that I noticed while looking at the article. Aoba47 (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • See recent films FAs like Whisky Galore!, Baby Driver, Ghostbusters II, etc. as examples. I do not have an issue with going outside of the expected article structure, but I just find this approach to be fundamentally flawed. I think the more relevant aspects from WP:RECEPTION are the parts on organization. There is more to that essay than the "A said B D said C" thing. Again, this is just my perspective. Hopefully, other reviewers will engage with this FAC as they may think differently. Aoba47 (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try consult other FA films and WP:RECEPTION, see if there can be improvements. GeraldWL 05:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have also noticed some spots where the prose could use further work. For instance, this sentence, Ertanto expected the soundtrack to be similar to the songs of Lana Del Rey, which he admired, and he said that the final product is similar to that of Del Rey's, is repetitive. I think this article would benefit from a peer review first. That is just my perspective though. Aoba47 (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded. I do initially refused to do FAC, but felt like a lot of the stuff here are clear and concise, and after consulting several Indonesian film featured articles, I feel like it's ready for the bronze. Any other instances of prose problems? GeraldWL 02:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will include some of the prose issues I found while through the article below. My primary concern is with how the "Theme and reception" section is structured. I have honestly not read the full article.
  • Publication The Display said that the film's ending: Publication is not a particularly helpful description. I would be more specific.
Aoba47, I specified it.
  • On its theme of religious tolerance, the film was said to succeed in "asking for tolerance without the need to shout.": Who said this?
It's Media Indonesia. That paragraph is all about the newspaper's review.
  • That's not made clear in the prose of the sentence. On a related note, having complete paragraphs devote to a single publication's review, (as done here and with Ulasinema, Eastern Kicks, The Jakarta Post, etc.), is not an ideal way to organize/structure a section like this. Aoba47 (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47, Hmmm. I personally don't see problems with that.
  • Despite no will to stir controversy via the film: This part is awkwardly constructed/worded.
I removed it; can't see the significance of it.
  • The word "film" appears multiple times in the second paragraph of the "Production" section alone. I would try to avoid this to avoid the prose from becoming too repetitive.
Reworded.
  • Maudy claims that her character's name was thought to be her real name when she was mentioned after her role as Zaenab in Si Doel the Movie: I had to read this part a few times to understand its meaning. I think there is a better/clearer way to word this.
Re-reading the article, it's not as claimed in this article. That part was from the rough translation from WPID. It has little significance with the film, so I removed it.
  • The film received positive review: You say this in the lead, but it is not really clearly stated in the later section on the film's reception.
I don't think it has to. The compendium of positive reviews basically expands the sentence "Received positive review." GeraldWL 05:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can only say that for me, the way that the critical reception is currently structured makes it difficult for me to really get a solid grasp on how the film was received in broad terms like that. Aoba47 (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded the lead to include its criticisms.
  • These are just a few items that I have noticed during an initial read-through. The Lana del Rey sentence was the one that really jumped out at me. The revised version avoids the repetition, but it is also pretty vague. Why did he expect the soundtrack to sound like Lana del Rey's music? Did he say what he admired about his music? However, again, the focus of my concern about the article is how the themes and critical reception is presented. I would be curious on which Indonesian film featured articles you consulted? Aoba47 (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded it after reading the article once more to really understand, see if it work for you. GeraldWL 06:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think the sentence on the Lana Del Rey part needs improvement. I will stop here though as we just have two completely different viewpoints on the article (and I've likely taken up too much space already). I still do not think it is ready for a FAC, but I will not formally oppose. Hopefully, other reviewers (more experienced than myself) will comment here. I wish you the best of luck with this, and have a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made it to only talk about its inspiration being from Del Rey. And thanks for your review, learned many things! Looking forward for other editors. GeraldWL 08:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given Spicy's comments below, I am going to oppose this as well. It is not ready for a FAC since an extensive amount of work is required (which should be done outside of a FAC), and I agree with Spicy that a PR and GOCE would be a better avenues to improve the article further. Aoba47 (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47, thanks for the suggestion. I will be sure to have a PR up if the article is not promoted. A GOCE would be hard, considering the late responses. If you see any other issues with the article feel free to bring it up here, it would mean a lot. GeraldWL 04:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be raising any further points here as that should be done elsewhere. And I consider the points that I have already raised (and the one raised by Spicy) to be significant. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Spicy[edit]

Thanks for putting this up for FAC. This is a good start, and an interesting read, but I believe the prose is far from FA standards at present. Some examples:

  • "serving a Catholic Church" - this should be "serving a Catholic church" because you are talking about an individual church, not The Catholic Church.
    Resolved. I believe an editor adjusted this up, as I originally put it as you suggested. GeraldWL 16:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Indonesian film premiered at the 2018 Hanoi International Film Festival. Locally, it premiered at the Jogja-NETPAC Asian Film Festival." - this is choppy and repetitive
    I don't see the problem here. It showed two sides: its international premiere and its local premiere. Nothing choppy, seemingly. GeraldWL 16:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It only received 80,000 audiences in 39 theatres nationwide" - "audiences" should be "viewers", and without context (e.g. is this notably poor performance for this sort of film? if so, what contributed to the poor performance?), "only" comes off as editorializing
    Un-editorialized. GeraldWL 16:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "born from" should be "born to"
    Fixed. GeraldWL 16:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There, she interacts with people from various religions until she moves to Ambarawa, Semarang in 1980..." - this implies she stopped interacting with people from other religions after she moved... obviously this isn't the case
    Resolved. GeraldWL 16:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • linking "touch each other" to Making out is just odd
    Rewrote it to "making out." In the scene they were making out; I initially just summarized it as "touching each other" as that's the most significant and climaxy thing they did that contributed to the mood of the rest of the film. GeraldWL 16:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Maryam goes to Girisonta's confessional, confessing her sins" - what else would one do at a confessional?
    I believe a brief, tiny description of a confessional is fine. The word "confessional" doesn't seem like anything religious to me when I first heard of it. GeraldWL 16:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that "the sea is made of salt water" does not need to be explained. The claim that "In a metaphoric sense, the sea is the values sisters hold dear and true, whilst the salt is Maryam herself." requires a citation.
    Removed as original research. GeraldWL 16:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before starting production, the film's crew mailed out letters of approval to related organizations, including the Semarang diocese, realizing its theme could be interpreted as sensitive in the Indonesian general public." - "letter of approval" means a letter stating that an outside body approves of something, not a letter asking for someone's approval. It's not very clear what "its" is referring to here - the reader has to search for it, which makes the sentence awkward to read.. "in the ... general public" should be "by the general public".
    Fixed. GeraldWL 16:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "even Ertanto says that he realized that Maudy was Muslim after production, realized from the general public questioning Maudy's religion due to the film" - it is very difficult to understand what is meant here
    Fixed it, does that work out great now? GeraldWL 16:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there was a meet-and-greet and Q&A session before the film starts" tense issues
    Fixed. GeraldWL 16:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the general public is disappointed with Netflix for choosing the cut version when they will not receive any legal problems if they release the uncut." - tense issues, again; "the general public is disappointed" is a very strong claim! "Receive" isn't the right word to use here.
    Reworded; although I don't think "disappointed" is a strong claim when it is cited by reliable source (I can see the weirdness though). GeraldWL 16:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reception section is very formulaic - see WP:RECEPTION for advice on improving this.
    I am currently trying to find a way in remodeling the section per the two comments I've received here. GeraldWL 16:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues: File:Ave Maryam plaza festival ticket.jpg is a derivative work; for the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license to be valid, the artwork on the ticket needs to be under a compatible license as well. I don't think there is a strong fair use case for File:Ave_Maryam_editing.jpg - the article doesn't even mention the editing process.

  • I put a de minimis template on the ticket image, if that's what your concern is on. As for the editing image, I chose that among many because the color grade of the film is one of the lauded elements by critics. Do you think adding more context makes it alright? GeraldWL 16:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not convinced that it is de minimis. The artwork is the focal point of the image (and the photo is of questionable relevance to the article anyway). Spicy (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, these are just examples and are not meant to be comprehensive - similar issues are found throughout the article. I think that the article could have benefitted from a thorough copyedit and a peer review before being nominated at FAC. Spicy (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spicy, thanks for the comments, mate! I chose to nominate it for FAC to attract a significant amount of editors who could have a more detailed comment(s) on this article; I also believed at the time this article is decent for an FA badge. If you look at the WPID version, it was also initially nominated for FA (not by me), and it failed but won a GA badge. If this article is not promoted, I plan to have this up on PR and GOCE, then nominate it for FA again. GeraldWL 16:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I appreciate that you have fixed some of the issues I raised but as I stated before, those are just examples of problems that occur throughout the article. By the time an article is nominated at FAC it should need only a few tweaks and polishes; I think this one will need extensive work outside of FAC to bring it up to standard. PR and GOCE would be a good idea. Spicy (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia Oppose[edit]

With two other reviewers opposing, I suggest withdrawal @FAC coordinators: ; peer review is a better place to improve this article, and you can attract attention there by adding the peer review to Template:FAC peer review sidebar once the PR is opened.

  • Facebook as a source?
  • "Simlarized" pops up first on google for ... this article.
  • The prose is quite rough and it will take substantial work to bring this to FA standard: Unlike other films, Ave Maryam's soundtrack is only one song, sung by jazz singer Aimee Saras, composed by The Spouse (also composer of soundtrack for Satan's Slaves), and played by Rooftopsound. There are two versions in the film: one with a vocals, and one with Saras simply vocalizing the melody of the lyrics.

Also, if this started as a translation from the Indonesian article, a serious look into the accurate representation of non-English sources, without copyvio (direct translations are copyvio, and that is often a problem pre-existing on other language Wikipedias) will be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be plenty of good points about this article, but there also seems to be a consensus that the nomination was premature. I suggest improving it and ironing it out off-FAC - PR, GoCE and getting a FAC mentor all spring to mind - and bringing it back with most of the bugs ironed out. Hopefully you will br=e nominating this again soon, subject to the usual two week wait. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ave_Maryam/archive1&oldid=994491318"