Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Happier Than Ever: A Love Letter to Los Angeles/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 September 2022 [1].

Happier Than Ever: A Love Letter to Los Angeles edit

Nominator(s): ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 09:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Singer-songwriter Billie Eilish! Disney-style animations courtesy of Patrick Osborne! Swearing! Like, lots of it. Witness this truly random combination of concepts, and more, in the 2021 concert film A Love Letter to Los Angeles 🎉

And I am finally back! With "Streets" (song) passing FAC under my wing, I feel happier than ever to nominate my second article for the bronze star. Thanks to a bunch of trimming down copyvio and a helpful GA review from @VersaceSpace, I believe the article quality is tantalizingly close to meeting the FA criteria. Constructive comments from anybody are absolutely welcome. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 09:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • "its performances—which they felt was of similar" => "its performances—which they felt were of similar"
  • "It received a nomination for" => "It received nominations for" (as three nominations are listed)
  • "as she overlooks the Los Angeles skyline" => "as she looks across the Los Angeles skyline"
  • "Eilish's performance is interspersed by shots" => "Eilish's performance is interspersed with shots"
  • "and he wondered how Disney will react" => "and he wondered how Disney would react"
    • Resolved all five above
  • "Kerry Asmussen directed and choreographed the corresponding scenes" - if Asmussen directed significant chunks of the film, why is she not named elsewhere as a co-director?
    • Well, Kerry directed only the live concert itself, and the film explicitly credits them as such and not as a co-director. Sure, the performances are significant chunks of the film, but there are a large number of animated interstitials that I would imagine are out of their creative control, so it makes sense to me that the credits do not credit them with director as a whole
  • "in the order that they placed on its track list" => "in the order that they appear on its track list"
  • "that wouldn't be possible" => "that would not be possible"
  • "because that entailed all the lighting would focus on Eilish instead" => "because that meant that all the lighting would focus on Eilish instead"
    • Resolved all three above
  • "She called the scene as the film's culminating moment" => "She called the scene the film's culminating moment"
    • Eh, wouldn't hurt to incorporate this I suppose
  • "However. she found their inclusion" - that full stop should be a comma
    • Good catch! I've fixed it accordingly
  • That's what I got. Great work and a nice read :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being the first reviewer @ChrisTheDude - appreciate the comments and the nice words about the writing. I've instated all suggestions and answered the question about the co-directing. While implementing the changes, I've added some new content that you may want to read in case you had any suggestions for how to improve them. Feel free to go through the entire thing again if you have to. Once again, thank you for the review, and have a nice start to your week! ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 02:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude, really really sorry for the ping - it's been a week since you last left comments, and I want to know if all your concerns have been addressed. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 03:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Media Review—pass edit

  • File:Happier Than Ever (film).jpg has an appropriate FUR.
  • File:Billie Eilish at the 2021 Met Gala - 04.png license and use seem fine. Perhaps a more detailed ALT text
  • File:Finneas O'Connell 2019 by Glenn Francis.jpg license and use seem fine. Detailed ALT text same as above
  • File:Robert Rodriguez by Gage Skidmore.jpg license and use seem fine. Detailed ALT text same as above
  • File:Patrick Osborne.jpg Use seems fine, AGF on copyright as own work. Detailed ALT text same as above
  • File:Hollywood Bowl.jpg license and use seem fine. Could use a detailed ALT text too
    • Per MOS:ALT, "Alternative text should be short, such as 'A basketball player' or 'Tony Blair shakes hands with George W. Bush'. If it needs to be longer, the important details should appear in the first few words, allowing the user of a screen reader to skip forward once the key points are understood. Very long descriptions can be left for the body of the article." The only key information in those images are who the pictures represent, and in the case of the last one, the filming location. Naming the subject is enough.
  • File:Billie Eilish - Goldwing (from Happier Than Ever, A Love Letter to Los Angeles) song sample.ogg audio sample meets WP:SAMPLE length permitted --Pseud 14 (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for this double-review @Pseud 14. I have replied to the concerns about the ALT text above. Hope to see how you think of the prose soon ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
      📝 "Don't get complacent..."       09:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your response Your Power. While that is a valid point, the primary purpose of alternative texts, as we know, is to aid visually impaired readers and provide context on the information and functionality of the images. Since the individuals depicted in these images are discussed in detail in each of those sections. It could be beneficial to be a little more descriptive to those foreign (and visually impaired) to who the subject(s) are. E.g. "an image of Finneas O'Connell in a suit and tie and wearing sunglasses", "an image of Robert Rodriguez wearing a cap and speaking into a microphone", "an exterior shot of a curved-shaped outdoor theatre" are some short and succinct examples. As FA-class articles exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, details such as these should be given attention too. Apologies for the long explanation, that is my only nit pick (as all the licenses are in good order). --Pseud 14 (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Pseud 14, I'd counter that by pointing to the example image in #Importance of context. "Unless it appears in an article on fashion, the alt text for this image of Elizabeth II should not be 'an elderly woman wearing a black hat'." In the same vein, unless we were discussing Eilish's fashion style in an article about her or discussing the aesthetics of pop artists, I would not make the ALT text read "a blonde woman with short hair and a nude-colored dress." The key questions to ask here include "What information is it presenting?" and "What purpose does it fulfil?" In this article, the images serves to illustrate the people/locations key to making the film, so the ALT text should merely name said people/locations. Your approach of describing how the image looks makes it unclear what the photos are supposed to represent, IMO. And that is a detriment to our viewers who use screen readers, I'd say! ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
          📝 "Don't get complacent..."           13:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your Power, But I'd also counter that the purpose of an alt text is to give visual context to what's in the image. If I am visually impaired and the screen reader only says "Billie Eilish", I wouldn't know what the picture depicts. I wouldn't go as far as that description. A short one like "an image of Eilish smiling to the camera" are commonly used in my experience within FAs and FLs alike. I just think that names alone are a bit inadequate. But I will leave that up for another image reviewer to hopefully jump in for their thoughts (and see what they think) before I conclude. Otherwise I have no quibble on licensing.--Pseud 14 (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sought image reviewers within the music/film/pop culture spaces [2] [3], and they are of the opinion that ALT text need to be descriptive, in the sense that they add something not already present in the caption. But if ALTs don't do more than just repeat the caption, they should be removed altogether (they're not FAC requirements after all). For consistency, the article in question uses a very detailed ALT for the film poster but elsewhere it's the exact opposite. --Pseud 14 (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well (this is a slight tangent but) I disagree with the idea that But if ALTs don't do more than just repeat the caption, they should be removed altogether (they're not FAC requirements after all). ALT text falls under MOS:ACCESSIBILITY, one of the many MOS guidelines an FA must follow. It is extremely important for our visually impaired readers to get all the information they need in an article - ALT text helps us with that goal, and thus, it should capture the sense of an image's purpose (this doesn't necessarily mean how an image looks). But I do agree with the general sentiments that the ALT texts in the article could stand to be a bit more descriptive relative to the caption. Accordingly I have added a bit more detail - please let me know if this is good enough @Pseud 14. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
                📝 "Don't get complacent..."                 06:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • Changes are adequate and satisfactory. This completes media review. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14 edit

  • In view of this, they created distinct color palettes -- They created distinct color palettes
    • Trimmed
  • A Love Letter to Los Angeles blends live action and animation styles. -- blends live action and animation filmmaking or just "live action and animation"
    • Went with the latter to avoid "film" twice in a row
  • I would link "live action and animation" to live-action animated film instead
    • Done - seems more appropriate
  • Osborne worked on the animation elements, mixing motion capture and rotoscoped visual effects. Nexus Studios worked on the animation in collaboration with -- Reword so "worked on the animation" isn’t repeated in two consecutive sentences
    • Changed sentence to something else entirely
  • drives a Porsche car -- drives a Porsche
    • Done
  • A symphony orchestra plays instruments during the next two performances -- She is accompanied by a symphony orchestra during the next two performances.
    • Somewhat done - I changed your suggestion to be more active-voice
  • The choir and orchestra leave as the next song, "Lost Cause", is about to begin. -- The choir and orchestra leave before she begins the next song "Lost Cause".
    • Simplified
  • Moving on to "Halley's Comet" -- During "Halley's Comet"
    • done
  • multiple bifurcated clones -- I would simplify bifurcated
    • Fair enough
  • orchestra helps once more with the instrumentals. -- this is a bit clunky, perhaps rephrase this
    • Removed "once more" - let me know if this is sufficient
  • takes a seat at the front row to watch the current and next performance. -- takes a seat at the front row to watch to watch the performance
    • Initially I went with this wording to make it clear she was still watching when "Male Fantasy" was up - I have changed the sentence to what you suggested while still making sure that nuance is there
  • combine live action techniques and animation -- combine live action and animation
    • Trimmed
  • Filming for the concert sequences took place on location at the Hollywood Bowl -- Filming for the concert sequences took place at the Hollywood Bowl
    • Also trimmed
  • Principal photography was swift, encompassing the entire first week of July -- Principal photography was completed in the first week of July
    • Trimmed too
  • called the Alta-X. -- I don’t think there’s a need to mention what the drones were called. You can link drones to the Alta-X article.
  • in view of production considerations. -- for production considerations.
    • Done
  • For the animated vignettes -- link for readers who are unfamiliar
  • Berron served as the cinematographer for A Love Letter to Los Angeles, in charge of its lighting and camerawork -- Berron served as the cinematographer for A Love Letter to Los Angeles.
    • Trimmed, and added a WL to cinematographer too
  • used smoke machines and laser beams – used smoke machines and lasers; link to laser lighting display
    • Seems reasonable
  • A Love Letter to Los Angeles was also eligible for Best Longform Video -- A Love Letter to Los Angeles was also nominated for Best Longform Video
  • The paragraphs in the Accolades section could be merged since the second is currently too small and they seem to be thematically cohesive.
    • Done both
  • That's all from me. Great read. --Pseud 14 (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pseud 14 - thank you for the QPQ I have responded to all of your prose comments above, with one objection. Will get to the image stuff later. A reviewer below raised objections with regards to the article's neutrality, and in the interest of not bothering them with another ping + looking for a fresh pair of eyes, may I have your third opinion about the topic? Thanks ^^ ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
      📝 "Don't get complacent..."       05:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • My concerns have been addressed. Support on prose. --Pseud 14 (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • As for your ask for a second look on neutrality, I had to wait a bit until after you re-wrote and made the changes before providing my review. Looking at the changes, I think it's an improvement from what it was. Here are a few suggestions (note that these are observations, and will leave it to the discretion of the reviewer to strike out their concerns).
          • Development section -- Looks better now that you've merged the 2nd and 3rd para and re-wrote it to avoid the appearance of reading like a PR. I would suggest though, that you take out Rodriguez was impressed by the album and get straight to his concerns on the explicit nature of some of the songs. His impression on the album, I think is irrelevant since, love it or hate it, he'd still be tasked to direct the film. That should just be left for the critics IMO.
          • and one verse in "Male Fantasy" is about using pornography to distract oneself. -- this reads more like it should be in the thematic analysis section than part of the development section. I think listing the explicit contents is a way to go and structure it in a way that connects/flows to the last sentence, which should be enough, IMO. --Pseud 14 (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for the support and image review pass @Pseud 14! I am glad to see that the neutrally issues seem fixed from your view. Wrt the first point, I removed the "impressed by the album" line as fluff per your justifications, with which I completely agree. For the second, I rewrote that line to make the connection to the last sentence clear. I can't possibly move the "Male Fantasy" line to the thematic analysis section because it simply will not fit anywhere in the commentary. As always let me know if this has been addressed. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
              📝 "Don't get complacent..."               02:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D edit

Sorry, but the quality of the prose is much below FA standard and the article has a non-neutral tone.

  • Some examples from the lead are:
    • The first sentence should identify the primary artist
      • Done
    • "In it, American singer-songwriter Billie Eilish performs all 16 tracks from her second studio album, Happier Than Ever (2021), accompanied by other musicians, including her brother Finneas O'Connell and the Los Angeles Philharmonic." - over complex (too long, too many commas)
      • Split
    • "The filming crew aimed to make each song feel unique and intimate accompanied by the proper visual atmosphere" - unclear, and using meaningless buzzwords (what does "unique" or "intimate" mean in this context?)
      • This is now clarified in the article. In short, "unique" = performances don't feel like a carbon copy of each other; intimate = viewers feel close to Eilish
    • "It received positive reviews from critics, who directed praise towards its performances" - bit clunky, and this kind of construction implies that there was total consensus - the relevant section of the article actually states some gave it negative reviews.
      • Fair enough. Since there is no Metacritic summary I figured simply stating the praises instead of making a general "the reviews were positive" statements would be safer. Though I'd push back a bit on the "some negative reviews" bit - I read every single review available online, and I went away with the impression that only the Insider commentary was less than positive.
  • Similar text appears throughout the article. For instance, the first para of the 'Development' section reads like PR material and the second para is hard to follow and seems overly detailed.
    • The second paragraph of that section looks way different now, and I removed any redundant details already covered beforehand in the prose. I.e. "the film would feature an animated character who travels across ... Hollywood and holds a concert in it" - this just rehashes the "Plot" section
  • There are also way too many low-value quotes from people involved in this project talking up their own work. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did my best to remove all trivia and quotes that gave the impression of promotional material, but I don't know for certain if I caught all of them. If this is not sufficient, some examples and corresponding explanations for why they did not add anything of value in your opinion would be appreciated.

@Nick-D, no need to apologize! A thorough slap in the face was needed, and with a more critical readthrough of the article I did catch some of the seemingly non-neutral stuff. As mentioned, I did a major overhaul of the article to address your concerns. I removed undue trivia and POV statements like "best way to handle cinematography", though I did my best to preserve what I believed were valuable information about the production process. Please let me know if this is sufficient. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 13:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, just wanted to get a sense of whether you believe the article is on track prose-wise now or needs more work that might best be done away from FAC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Sorry, I've been remiss here. The edits are looking good. I'll do a proper review. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's been good progress across the article: nice work. I'm happy to now support after doing some copy editing, but have the following comments:

  • The cast section should be referenced
  • It's surprising that there's no commentary on the links between the film and the pandemic: empty venues have been a key element of the pandemic (perhaps moreso outside the US?), and presumably Elish's decision to make the film was motivated by concerns about the practicality of touring to promote the album? Nick-D (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D thank you for another read-through! Glad to have your support. There are citations for the cast section now.
Regarding your second comment --- unfortunately the most I can milk off available sources is: There was a pandemic -> this discouraged crowds -> the Hollywood Bowl had no live audience during film -> no audience meant closer camera angles -> two reviewers like the emptiness and thought that it made the vibes more beautiful. I imagine that while dredging through the whole article, folks can read between the lines and catch this link despite no explicit attempts from the article to link them.
Moreover, Eilish definitely had to keep COVID-19 in mind before doing any touring - that's why her previous one was cancelled - but as far as I know her primary motivation to make the film was to pay tribute to the city. Once again thank you for taking the time to read this article! ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 07:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. The improvements between my first read of the article and today have been really impressive. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

Looks like this has had a fair amount of reviewers so I'll conduct a source review for now. Version reviewed.

  • What makes CineD a high-quality reliable source?
    • The quality of a given source always depends on context. Here, we are dealing with an interview with the filming crew, and we can easily verify that the author got in touch with them because of the attached photos of the set. The information found in the CineD article lines up with the other interviews/general references used in the prose; no glaring inconsistencies arise. The aforementioned article deals with cinematography for Love Letter, and its author Mark Tierney has a lengthy career in filmmaking, which includes cinematography. So we're dealing with a professional in the filmmaking industry who is interviewing the crew about filmmaking for a movie to which he has little connection. I think this is good enough for a FAC.
  • Spot-checks: 10, 12, 13, 20, 21, 22, 40
  • Source 22: since the source itself doesn't include an ellipsis, the quote "[her] ongoing theme of solitude, and the autonomy found within that ... speaks" should begin and end with square brackets, per MOS:ELLIPSIS.
    • Done
  • Not source-related but I would remove the abbreviation VMA in the lead and body as they're not used anywhere beyond these two instances.
    • Fair enough - done
  • "She contacted Robert Rodriguez, whom she thought was" - who, not whom.
    • "whom" is used for the 'object' of a sentence - that is, the receiver of the action that the subject performs. Eilish is the performer of the action (contacted), and Rodriguez is the object.

Mostly a source review but some prose-related concerns I noted while checking the sources. FrB.TG (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was quick - thank you @FrB.TG! Appreciate the QPQ. All the concerns above have been addressed. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 11:36, 4 September 2022 (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/Happier_Than_Ever:_A_Love_Letter_to_Los_Angeles/archive1&oldid=1112759862"