Wikipedia:Peer review/By the Bluest of Seas/archive1

By the Bluest of Seas

Recently came across this obscure little film and thought I'd do what I could to increase our coverage on it. Although I believe that there may be some more scholarly articles and perhaps even books that have discussed the topic, I unfortunately don't have the time to track those down. As it stands, I really just focused on the Plot and Reception section, although I also expanded the lead and created a home media section. Using the sources that I've come across, it wouldn't be feasible to write a production section. I'm honestly not sure how much time I even have to address the points that are raised during this peer review; I mainly just want to hear what other's think of the article's current state. The Reception section could perhaps be perceived as unwieldy or disorganized, but I've tried my best to give it a decent flow. If there are any small changes that I could make, then I'll try to work on those, but feedback on larger issues is appreciated as well. Even if I can't address everything myself, it may be helpful for the next editor who comes along to have some suggestions waiting on the talk page on how to bring the article to the next stage.

Thanks, Jpcase (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Happy to take a look through.

• Your lead image could do with a slightly expanded rationale. Your image of Barnet lacks a rationale, but clearly fails NFCC#8 anyway- it should be removed immediately.
  • Thanks for catching this. It seems that most infobox images of people have been released into the public domain, and I hastily assumed that this held true for the one of Barnet. I've gone ahead and removed it, although it's a shame that the image can't be used, as the article now looks rather bare. As for the DVD cover image, that was in use before I came along. I have to admit that I've never been particularly confident in dealing with copyright issues. Feel free to expand the rationale yourself if you'd like; otherwise, I think it best for me to leave this to the next person. --Jpcase (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• Yelena Kuzmina is a dablink
  • Fixed --Jpcase (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• The focus on UK releases in the lead does strike me as undue weight (that said, I see further down that there have been very very few releases- this could be stressed in the lead)
  • Fixed --Jpcase (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• "Dennis Schwartz of Ozus' World Movie Reviews also noticed a dichotomy within the film's tone, writing both that the film is "strangely uplifting" and that it contains "some darker moments to reflect on."[5]" Be aware of MOS:LQ
  • Ah, punctuation within quotations. This has always given me trouble. The sentence that Schwartz wrote actually does end at that point. But should the period go outside the quotation marks anyway, since "some darker moments to reflect on" isn't a full sentence? Or is it okay as it is? Unless I missed something, the MoS doesn't seem to really specify what one should do in a situation like this. --Jpcase (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• In at least a couple of places, you seem to be using the wrong dashes- see WP:DASH. For example, "Allegations of propaganda have occasionally been made about the film's message[2][3] - a message described by Anthony Nield of the Digital Fix as "a paean to communism and collectivism".[1]" That's a hyphen, not a dash. (I struggle with this issue, too...)
  • Fixed, I think. This is another area that's always given me some trouble. --Jpcase (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
• "In a seven star review," Seven out of what?
  • I thought that I could get away with just saying "seven star", since it's fairly apparent that it would be out of ten - never heard of a nine star scale or an eleven star scale, or anything really, other than four, five and ten. But I've gone ahead and changed this to "seven out of ten star review" --Jpcase (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
• I don't like the link to the French Wikipedia in the prose; Template:Interlanguage link multi may be a better way to do this
  • Fixed. I'm not sure that I've ever done an interlanguage link before and wasn't quite sure how to best do it. You're quite right - this is much better. --Jpcase (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
• "not "persistent enough to have a genuine effect."[1]" LQ, again
  • Same situation as above. --Jpcase (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
• Your sources look alright (though I suspect that there are better ones out there!), but I note that there's some inconsistency on author names- if you're just going for "John Smith", you should lose "Smith, John" or "Prof. John Smith", for instance.
  • The only reason that I went with "Prof. Nicole Brenez" is to clarify to future editors that she is indeed an "expert in her field", thus meeting the criteria for self-published sources. I don't want someone down the road to accidentally remove the source, upon seeing that it comes from YouTube. If anyone ever wants to put more work into this article and eventually nominate it for GA, then perhaps at that point, it can be determined whether to keep or remove the suffix. Until then, I'm in favor of keeping it, as a safeguard. --Jpcase (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
• There seems to be a little bit of inconsistency in date formats.
  • I assume that you're referring to the lack of dates for a few of the sources? That's because, well, some of the sources simply don't have dates. There are a couple of sources, for which I had initially omitted the use of a date field, that I've gone back to and added an ambiguous time frame (November 2012, Winter 2013). But there are still two - the one for the NFSA and the one for the Chicago Reader - with publication dates (month, day, and year) that can't be determined. Nothing that can be done about that, but it shouldn't really be a problem. --Jpcase (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The writing is generally good, and the article is a good B-class article. I come away from the article with a good idea of what the film is about and why I should care about it. In terms of taking the article further, I think you already have a fairly good idea of what needs to be done- you need to look into developing a production section (at the very least, it sounds like there's some DVD commentary out there that you could use, but I suspect, given the comments in the reception section, that there will be some discussion/coverage in the film literature), and you need to delve into the literature on the history of film. It does look like there's plenty out there - see Google Scholar and Google Books - but you certainly wouldn't need to read everything out there. Just get some key points from some key texts. A final thought- as your reception section is rather long, you may want to consider splitting it out to an analysis and/or themes section and a reception section. A legacy and/or influence section would be another possibility. Certainly not a must, but just another way of splitting things up if you're worried about the current set-up. A few users out there have some experience writing very strong articles about older films (including older films from outside of the English-speaking world), but I don't know anyone off the top of my head who writes about Soviet cinema. I can give you some names if you're looking for people to offer some pointers and/or a possible collaboration. Anyway, nice work, and I do hope you find the time to improve the article further! Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Josh Milburn! I appreciate the comments. Breaking off parts of the "Reception" section into an "Analysis" section is something that I considered upon seeing how long things got. But I'm a little daunted at the idea of such a large scale restructuring. These days, I simply don't have much time for editing. Hence why I restrained myself to the eight sources already in use, even though, as you mentioned, there's clearly more out there that I could have drawn from. My approach to this article was really just as a quick side project. If you know of a well-experienced editor who would like to take on a lead role in the article's future development, then I'd happily try and give support.

From what I've been able to determine, this seems to be among the only Azerbaijani films to have received any kind of attention in the West (and even then, the director's Russian). I've recently decided to try watching at least one film for each country in the Middle East, and so far, Azerbaijan (I suppose it's ambiguous as to whether the Caucasus should be considered Middle Eastern, but I decided to include the region) has given me the most trouble. I don't really know anything at all about Soviet cinema myself. But I love improving our coverage of topics that were a challenge for me to learn about - in the hopes of making things a little easier for the next guy. It would be great to see someone else take an interest and pick up where I've left off.

At the very least, I'll try to address your smaller, individual points above. And if you're willing to put a little more time into this, I'd be curious to get your thoughts on RO's comments below. I understand many of his concerns and will try to write him a separate reply soon. However, I'm hesitant about making some of his suggested changes (e.g. is it really inappropriate to start a formal sentence with "however"?) and feel that it might be helpful to get a third opinion on those. --Jpcase (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from RO

Lead

• It is his second sound feature

What's a sound feature?

I've linked to sound film, which I believe should suffice as an explanation. --Jpcase (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Modern critical reviews

Do you mean it's kind of a cult classic?

Perhaps, although I'm not sure that it's widely enough known to be regarded even by that term. I'd say that the film is best understood as an obscure, largely forgotten work of historical significance, that a small handful of modern critics and scholars have rediscovered. Other than the one reference which states that the film was deemed "overly emotional" during its initial release, and the fact that Soviet Russia took issue with the film's particular brand of politics, I've yet to see any information on how the film was received in its own time. Should the fact that the film faced a certain amount of criticism in its day, only to be hailed as something of a classic by modern critics, be taken as an indication that it's a cult classic? Maybe yes, maybe no. None of the references that I've been working with describe the film as such though, so I'll avoid using the term. As I've discussed with J Milburn, there are certainly quite a few additional sources that could be drawn from, and if another editor ever wants to pick up where I've left off, it may be that something could be said along these lines. --Jpcase (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• characters are thinly written

What's "thinly written"? Can you state this more clearly?

Per Merriam Webster: Thin - lacking substance or strength as in a thin broth or a thin plot. [1] Since this is an official definition, rather than a euphemism, I'm not sure that there's any need to rephrase this. --Jpcase (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• However, many consider the film

Avoid using "however" in formal writing.

As I've said above, I'm hesitant about making this change. I've never heard of this rule, and I believe that back in September, I even came across a webpage stating that "however" actually is acceptable in formal writing (I can't find the page anymore though). If you're able to provide more explanation on this point, then I can try to correct any mistakes that I've made. Otherwise, I'll leave the issue alone. Someone else can correct it later, if necessary. --Jpcase (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• has led many to view the film as unique

Anybody in particular?

The aforementioned "critics". Specific names are offered in the "Reception" section and shouldn't be required in the lead. --Jpcase (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• It has been reported that Barnet found himself in trouble with Joseph Stalin for these reasons.

For uniqueness, or for not holding to the expectations of Socialist realism?

Well, the film is seen as unique because of its deviation from Soviet realism. The two points are interlinked. --Jpcase (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• The film has received two DVD releases in the UK

This is not great; how about: "The film has been released on DVD in the UK by two publishers:"?

Good suggestion! I've already done an alternative rewrite though, per one of J Milburn's above comments. --Jpcase (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Plot

• However, Yussuf soon joins up

Avoid "however".

See my above response. --Jpcase (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Alyosha claims heart sickness

What's "heart sickness"?

I've linked the term to heart disease. --Jpcase (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• I like the plot summary. You did a great job explaining this story!
  • Thanks! That really means a lot! :) --Jpcase (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Reception

• Right off I can see that this section is too long. You might split it up into contempory and retrospective reviews for ease of reading and improved organization.

I agree wholeheartedly that this section is overlong. Splitting it along those lines would be a good approach, if more contemporary reviews ever turn up. Alternatively, J Milburn's suggestion of culling some of the information off into a separate "Analysis" and / or "Legacy" section would a good approach as well. Unfortunately, I just don't have the time to make this change myself. Hopefully someone else will eventually pick up where I've left off. --Jpcase (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Barnet was reportedly ashamed of his own body of work

Do you mean to say he as ashamed of his whole career?

Yes. I don't recall seeing anything that discusses Barnet's feeling about this film specifically, but since he was reportedly ashamed of his entire body of work (which would include By the Bluest of Seas), this statement is certainly relevant to the article. --Jpcase (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• works of the American Walsh

If you want to mention that he's American, do it at the first mention, not the second. Otherwise, it sounds like American films in general lack melancholy, which certainly isn't true.

While it's certainly quite true that American cinema has its share of melancholy, Rosenbaum's statement is contrasting Russian sensibilities with American ones. In this particular instance, Rosembaum seems to feel that the difference in style between the two men owes, at least in part, to their nationalities. So the manner in which I've structured this is intentional, and I don't believe that it should be changed. --Jpcase (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• outbreaks of song come across as both random and "natural"

Is the movie a musical?

Sort of, but not exactly, haha. If I remember correctly, the film contains three or four songs, but none of them run for very long. Also, I believe that they would be called diegetic. In other words, the characters don't break into big musical numbers; they sing in a manner that is realistic. Nevertheless, the songs are prominent enough that I could imagine someone classifying the film as sort of a low-key musical. I've decided not to describe the film as such in the lead (or to add it to any musical categories), since none of the references explicitly call it a musical. --Jpcase (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Friel saw similarities between By the Bluest of Seas and

I would keep all of the points relating to Friel in the same paragraph, as right now you mention his thoughts, break paragraphs, then go back to his opinions.

My thought was to section off the comments regarding Socialist realism into their own paragraph. I think that you have a good point though. Both of those paragraphs discuss the film's "tone", and so I have no problem with combining them. Thanks! --Jpcase (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• propaganda, while present, is not central to Barnet's filmmaking style

Why the general comments immediately following a specific one? I get the sense that we are sometimes talking about this particular film and others about Barnet's style in general.

Hmm...I kind of see what you're saying here. I guess the reason is because the specific is contained within the general. By saying that propaganda isn't "central to Barnet's filmmaking style", it gives the reader additional information. Barnet's "filmmaking style" was of course, applied to By the Bluest of Seas, so the statement gives readers information specific to this film. The statement goes further though, communicating to readers that Barnet's approach to propaganda on By the Bluest of Seas was not an aberration from his typical methods. --Jpcase (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• French film producer Dominique Païni has even said that the beauty of the opening scene has given him an erection.[8]

I'd leave this out as kind of silly.

It is silly, but that's kind of why I put it in. :) A professional film producer has said it, a professional source has commented upon it, and so it would seem a shame not to provide coverage of such as striking statement in our article. There very well may be a better way of presenting the information though. I'm open to suggestions. --Jpcase (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Conclusion

I'd condense the reception section as stated above, as it's just a little too much for my tastes. Separate out the comments that are not specifically related the this particular film. Avoid discussing the director in general terms unless those terms relate specifically to this film. It's a nice piece overall; keep up the great work! RO^(talk) 16:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rationalobserver: My apologies for letting your comments go unanswered for so long. I just started a new job a few months ago, and my time for Wikipedia editing has almost entirely disappeared. I had hoped to get back to you much, much earlier, but better late than never, I suppose. If you've already moved on and aren't able to respond, then that's fine. I understand and I thank you for taking the time to leave your suggestions. I'll try to address each of them; hopefully by the end of the day, although it's hard to say what my schedule will allow. --Jpcase (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Success! Everything has been responded to. Again, if you have the time to follow up with me, then that would be great! But I understand if you are no longer available for participating in this discussion. Thank you again for providing your feedback! I hope that I've addressed your concerns to satisfaction. --Jpcase (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)