Talk:Somewhere (film)

Somewhere (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 11, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

References for use

Horowitz, Josh (August 30, 2010). "Sofia Coppola Talks Motherhood, Reality TV And 'Somewhere'". MTV News. MTV. Archived from the original on September 17, 2010. Retrieved September 17, 2010.

Kollision (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dorff interview: Wilson, Owen (August 2009). "Stephen Dorff". Interview Magazine. Archived from the original on June 11, 2010. Retrieved September 1, 2009.</ref>

Lacony

Description of the film, plotting and/or story are a little less to me.

Stil and reasons are manking! Yes I would like to know more about this so boring hollywood actor. She, directing, is dealing with hype clischees in a way; I may start to believe in love again. Subjekt profil as a main lack in a real recognization, non dramatic, but laconic is poesie... Please ask to give more information!--Raskollnika (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Somewhere (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC) I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.[reply]

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Prose and organization is good, I made a fe minor copy-edits.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
References, check out, RS, no evidence of OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
good coverage, no unnecessary trivia
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Images tagged and captioned
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I am happy to pass this as a good article, congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the database links

I am a little confused about the exclusion of database links. Yes, they are already used as in-line citations, and they are not mandated in the MOS:FILM, but they are encouraged because they do provide real assistance to readers. If someone wants to look up the basic facts about a film, he/she can easily find them through a group of useful links in the EL section. The inclusion of them really does no harm to the quality of this article. - Artoasis (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that there is no reason that they are automatic. According to WP:EL, only links which add something beyond the article should be included. The main information from Rotten tomatoes and box office mojo are already included in the text of the article. A reader wishing to go further can explore the sources used in the ref section. Unthinkingly including links does diminish the quality of the article - wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of such links. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they don't add anything new, but they do offer a easier way to locate certain information. I know it's bad practice to add in-line references to ELs for most articles, but film articles are a little different, hence the guidelines at MOS:FILM. But if you insist on excluding them, it's all right. I only want to add them because I thought I could help improve this article. It's a very well-written piece. - Artoasis (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I wasn't accusing you of doing wrong at all. In fact, it's me who is going against the grain a little. My view is that those links are more useful on stubs and lower quality articles, but should be removed or incorporated as an article approaches B class. I know IMDB is popular among filmgoers, personally I don't think that much of it and prefer the review aggregations when deciding which film too see. I'm going to take my quest next to MOS:FILM (which is subsidiary to WP:EL btw), it's not written that clearly. Thanks for you kind words about the article. Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

model of car

anyone can add model of car he is riding in the film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.240.235.182 (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a place for us . . somewhere . . maybe over the rainbow

Somewhere is the first word in the lyrics of Over the Rainbow, the iconic popular song which has found legendary symbolism for dreams and wishes within the American experience .

It is also Somewhere, a song in West Side Story

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LgW0Rq4PJ0 | Barbra Streisand (excellent version - occasional poor sound quality) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurencebeck (talk • contribs) 04:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Critical reception" section

I am confused by this section's claim that: The film received mildly positive reviews from critics. then goes on to list more accolades than detractions. Would it not be fairer to say that the reception was mixed?

POSITIVE:

2010 National Board of Review Awards, Sofia Coppola was given the Special Filmmaking Achievement Award for writing, directing and producing
Rotten Tomatoes - 72%, hypnotic, charming performances
Roger Ebert in Chicago Sun-Times - 4/4 stars
NYT - exquiste, mastery
Le Monde - positive review, daring film, delicate irony
France 24 - virtuosity
Richard Roeper - 10th best film of the year.

MIXED:

"Sight and Sound" - going in circles, delicate portrait

NEGATIVE:

Metacritic - 67/100
Guardian - 2/5 stars, resembled "Lost in Translation" too closely, lacked emotional depth
BBC Radio 5 - self-indulgent and boring
Allociné - 2.9/5 stars

Thanks for your attention, Wordreader (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thanks for your careful consideration of the article. I'm not entirely sure that the Metacritic and Allociné scores can be classed as negative. As you mention it's always a bit subjective trying to summarise critical reception of a film. I have a new source, strong which I hope to add to the article soon hopefully it will clarify the film's place in the canon. Best, Ktlynch (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]