Talk:Gangs of Lagos/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Afrowriter (talk · contribs) 10:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Reading Beans (talk · contribs) 09:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to starting in on this review! As I go, I'll fix minor things myself (and of course you can always revert/rewrite those changes) and make comments below with bigger concerns that I'll bounce back to you for edits. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reading Beans Thank you! I've been able to further expand the article, particularly focusing on the development process and other details. Please feel free to review it whenever you have some time. Merci! 😊 Afro 📢Talk! 11:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

The lede's second paragraph states that Critics reviewed the film positively, praising its cinematography, production design, acting, and writing; yet, the third paragraph says the reception was "divisive". So which one is verified by reliable source? The first claim is not substantiated in the article's body; rather, it's a synthesised claim not otherwise stated by the reviews cited. The "divisive" claim is not sourced, either. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy The negative reviews did not come from film critics, as clearly indicated in the Reception section, which mentions the "Lagos State Government and the Oba of Lagos." Despite receiving praise from reliable magazines, notable news outlets, and film critics, the film faced controversial opinions from other quarters. [1][2] This are clearly source from reliable platforms. Afro 📢Talk! 09:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy Here’s a link to support the first claim [3],[4]. Additionally, there are several other sources cited in the article that back this point. I encourage you to take the time to review the cited materials thoroughly. Afro 📢Talk! 10:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources explicitly states that critics praised the movie for its cinematography, production design, acting, and writing; that's your synthesis, apparently. Per MOS:FILMCRITICS, The overall critical reception to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources that summarize reviews; do not synthesize individual reviews. Another RS that explicitly states the claim should be cited; you can't just clump together sentiments of two reviews and then make a broad claim that this is the overall consensus among film critics. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy Individual critics can also be referenced to detail various aspects of the film. Professional film critics are regarded as reliable sources, although reputable commentators and experts—connected to the film or to topics covered by the film—may also be cited. "Several critics have praised the film, particularly highlighting its cinematography, production design, and the performances of the cast. While the film may not be reviewed on prominent aggregators like Metacritic or Screen Rant. , multiple reputable sources have offered detailed critiques. These reviews emphasize the director’s meticulous attention to visual composition, the immersive and authentic production design, and the compelling performances delivered by the lead and supporting actors. Incorporating insights from such reliable sources ensures a balanced and nuanced representation of the film’s artistic and technical achievements." To keep things concise, I believe I would have rephrase that particular claim to avoid any potential issues with getting the article to GA status. Afro 📢Talk! 17:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy Fixed Afro 📢Talk! 17:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand that part of the guideline. It actually means that film critics can also be trusted as sources on stuff about the film's development, casting, filming, post-production histories (hence, "various aspects of the film"), not just film criticism. Again, if you must include that contentious claim, at least back it up with a better source in which it actually states (i.e. paraphrased or word-for-word) that Critics reviewed the film positively, praising its cinematography, production design, acting, and writing, because the opinions of two reviewers can't possibly be shared by other reviewers. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy That part has been removed. Afro 📢Talk! 06:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy , Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia You may review the article again, as some potential issues have been resolved and additional information has been included. Afro 📢Talk! 21:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The synopsis should be expanded into a plot summary which contains 400-700 words, and File:Screenshot of bts gang of lagos.jpg should be deleted, as it merely shows the crew conferring with the cinematographer and, as such, doesn't do a good job of providing contexts to texts it's trying to support; nothing of encyclopedic value will be lost once it's gone. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy The plot summary section has been revised, and the behind-the-scenes screenshot has been replaced with an actual screenshot from the movie, which I believe is more appropriate. Afro 📢Talk! 10:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask what encyclopedic value that screenshot provides a casual reader? Will it add to the reader's understanding of the article, or are they better off without it? Because I feel like its inclusion is self-serving and purely decorative, given it's a still image from the movie. If that image is free, fine, but since it's licensed for fair use, then it must provide something of terrible importance to a reader to merit its inclusion. See the "necessary components" clause of the non-free use rationale guideline. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy The screenshot is included to visually contextualize the content discussed in the article plot summary Nino playing the role of a father figure to Ify,Obalola and gift.File:Gangs Of Lagos - Prime Video Naija 00-00-41 (2).png It provides a direct reference to a key moment or element, helping readers better understand the subject. However, if you feel it doesn't add substantial value or clarity, I'm open to reconsidering its inclusion as i have deleted the other screenshots. Afro 📢Talk! 14:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot has been removed. @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, thank you! I believe that was the final issue to address. I appreciate all your feedback and for highlighting the potential issues that needed resolution. Afro 📢Talk! 14:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you finally got the hint. Please note that fair-use images, such as movie screenshots, are not freely-licensed images that you can just use to "decorate" an article you're intimately involved with; everything uploaded in Wikipedia should serve a purpose and bring relevance to the article in question. Per WP:NFCCP, No. 8: Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove the actors' names in parentheses from the plot summary, as the guidelines in writing plot summaries don't allow it. I apologize if I came off a bit strong with my comments. Good luck with this article. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy Done, no issues. I’m glad you were able to highlight these points and provide guidance. Afro 📢Talk! 14:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afrowriter, I’ll start up when 1994 guy is done although some of the issues I would have pointed are taken care of… a bit. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted@Reading Beans Afro 📢Talk! 09:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Beans, my concerns have been addressed. Thank you for your patience. Carry on. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment: I am not the reviewer but would make things clear. Please nominator: do not argue with any reviewer. Cheers. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe Sure, I wasn’t arguing with the reviewer; I was simply trying to clarify my point. I’m glad the issue has been resolved, and I appreciate the explanation for future reference. Afro 📢Talk! 09:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]