Talk:Parsley Days

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 11 January 2018 by reviewer SeraphWiki (talk · contribs).

Film: Canadian

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.

Cinefest Sudbury International Film Festival

Rather than edit war, I figure I'll come here. Sociology3000, I see nothing in this PDF that mentions the Cinefest Sudbury IFF. There really aren't even any accolades mentioned; the closest is It premiered to great acclaim at the Toronto International Film Festival and the rather vague named one of Canada’s Top Ten by the TIFF Group in 2001 (page 4). So how can you claim that Dorfman won "Best Canadian first feature" when neither the supposed title nor the IFF it was awarded at are in the reference? I'm not an expert in film festivals (Canadian or otherwise) which is probably why I'm pinging on this point so much - it should be clear from the references that an award has been given. Primefac (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PrimefacSorry man ahah, I don't really know how to talk to people to well on here, but it is under page 5 of the PDF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sociology3000 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well... that's embarrassing. Primefac (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, I didn't even see it there at first which was why I used IMDb Sociology3000 (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac But as someone who has a lot of Wikipedia experience, do you believe the article is good enough to be accepted this time?Sociology3000 (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely looks better than the last time it was declined. Primefac (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help recently, it means a lot, do you have any idea how long a resubmitted article takes to review? The first time only took about 10 hours or so. Sociology3000 (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you deleted the fold section for?Sociology3000 (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, because "why my prof wants" does not always align with Wikipedia's standards. The Education noticeboard among others is awash with profs that have no idea how to run a course (not saying yours is, I'm talking generally).

Second, because it's editorializing the film. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a website for film critiques. If it were a bit shorter, or better referenced (which is point 3) it might be okay, but in current form it's entirely too grandiose for the overall length of the article. In fact, the "Magical Realm" section should probably be cut as well.

Anywho, the third point is that it's bordering on original research. You do paraphrase Burke with phrases like Historically, the North End of Halifax was home to the working class, but nowhere does he talk about the idea of the bicycle being the main method of transportation within the film...fits perfectly into the traditional ideals of North End or [allowing] for the result of Kate's deepest desires and anxieties. The two sections sound like you have written a review of the film, and have tacked on a reference that corroborates parts of it. That's just not how Wikipedia works.

Now, as I said, there's some room for including that information, possibly in the "Critical reception" section, but at the moment the two sections definitely should not be as long or poorly-sourced as they are now. Primefac (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OKay thanks again for the advice, I will attempt to get that done tomorrow but probably keep the two sections but make them sound as good as I can without making it sound like a review, and by the bike being the main part of transportation I got that from the movie itself because they only ride bikes throughout the entirety of the film. Sociology3000 (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]