Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Latvian submissions for the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Latvian submissions for the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film edit

List of Latvian submissions for the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): GeraldWL 17:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A short, dynamic list of [self-explanatory]. Latvia has submitted 12 films: eleven are not nominated whilst Dvēseļu putenis is pending as of time of writing. 7 similar articles of different countries are FLs, seeable at WP:FL. I took some stuff from those articles, and modified it. Notifying other major contributor, Lugnuts. GeraldWL 17:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this candidate gets promoted before or during early February, I plan to have this submitted as TFL, to be displayed on Feb 9, or other Februaries. GeraldWL 09:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*Articles should not start with "The following is a list......"
  • Changed.
  • Flag of Latvia is a bit random for a lead image. A picture related to one of the films would be far more appropriate. If there aren't any available images then just do without.
    I changed it to photo of the War of Independence, in which two submitted films were set at. Does that look good?
    • Well it's more appropriate I guess, but in the caption it should say that two submissions are set, not is, as submissions is plural -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.
  • "first taken effect at the 1956 (29th) Academy Awards" => "and was first presented at the 1956 (29th) Academy Awards"
    Changed.
    • Not changed, the wording is still exactly the same and does not make grammatical sense in English -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A month after restoring independence, Latvia was recognized by the Soviet Union in September 1991" - our article On the Restoration of Independence of the Republic of Latvia says independence was restored in May 1990, so September 1991 was 16 months later, not one
    Delinked.
    • I didn't simply mean you should delink it, I meant that you need to actually clarify the timescale. Currently this article says that September 1991 was a month after independence was restored, but the article which is actually about independence says completely differently. So which is correct? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • ChrisTheDude, it's complicated. Latvia got their independence on November 1918, however it was ruined in 1940 as the Latvian SSR arise. The SSR passed the Restoration in 1990, and a year later it was recognized. Maybe I can change it to "A month after being passed for independence"? GeraldWL 09:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, as I have said before, if the Restoration was passed in 1990, then the sentence "A month after restoring independence, Latvia was recognized by the Soviet Union in September 1991" is simply wrong. A month after May 1990 was June 1990, not September 1991. Can you not see what the issue is? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • ChrisTheDude, Sorry for the misconceptions. Observing the Latvian SSR article, I decided to keep the current: "The full independence of the Republic of Latvia was restored on 21 August 1991, during the 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt and fully recognized by the Soviet Union on 6 September 1991." From the Restoration article, the declaration merely restoring de jure independence; the law "On the Statehood of the Republic of Latvia" was passed on Aug 1991, which was what caused Latvia to finally restore de facto independence. So I've re-linked back, but in a specific "Furhter" section. GeraldWL 06:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bringing the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic to and end" - typo in penultimate word
    Thanks for spotting that! Removed the d.
  • "comedy The Child of Man by Jānis Streičs," - how was it "by" him? Was he the writer? The director? Something else?
    He wrote and directed the film.
  • "eleven are not nominated" => "eleven were not nominated"
    Done.
  • Director column sorts on forename - it should sort on surname
  • Film titles starting with "The" should sort on the next word in the title
    I don't really understand these two points. Should it be, say, "Doe, Jane"? Other Academy list articles don't seem to do this.
  • "The panel noted that the film "has a size"" - what does this mean?
    That's from the source, from what the panel said. I suppose that "size" means that the film has an overwhelmingly positive reception, but I don't dare assuming. Anyone who understand that term can help clarify.
    • If it isn't clear what it actually means, I would remove it. "The film has a size" means literally nothing in English -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed it.
  • "It was also noted the film's "meaning for Latvian history and culture."" => " It also noted the film's "meaning for Latvian history and culture.""
    Changed.
  • "In the virtual meeting, the panels said" - is it meant to say panels (plural)?
    Singularized.
  • "said that the reason for choosing the film is due to" => "said that the reason for choosing the film was due to"
    Done.
  • "The panel pointed its theme, cinematography, and originality as to how the film stands out among the other two candidates:" => "The panel noted that its theme, cinematography, and originality made the film stand out against the other two candidates:"
    Done.
    • You haven't changed it to what I suggested, and what it currently says is not grammatically correct -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hope it's now fully done.
  • "Still outside of Latvia at the time, director Jevgēņijs Paškevičs states" - what does "still outside of Latvia at the time" mean? Also, it should be "stated" not "states" as it refers to something that happened in the past
    Changed redundant fragment to "In response".
  • "and ended up being a Latvian film" => "and it ended up being a Latvian film"
    Done.
  • "The title namesake," - no need for these words
    Removed.
  • "Considered alongside The Lesson by Andris Gauja" - what does this mean? That film was another candidate to be chosen? Presumably there were other candidates in the other years as well, so why only mention this one?
    Clarified.
  • That's what I got on a first pass..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ChrisTheDude, did most changes, I've questioned some points and clarified some misconceptions above. Thanks for the comments! GeraldWL 05:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ChrisTheDude, can you confirm your opinion on this nom (support/oppose)? Or any more comments? GeraldWL 04:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have highlighted a couple of points above which you marked as done but in fact they haven't been changed at all. Could you make these changes please? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    One other point I only just noticed - notes 1-5 and 9 and the second half of 8 are not full sentences so shouldn't have full stops -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ChrisTheDude, did the requested changes. However for the notes, I can only see some notes using inside full stop-- I have switched some that violate WP:LQ, but for the rest it seems fine. GeraldWL 12:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The notes to which I referred (in the section headed "notes", not the "submission reasoning"/"external commentaries" bit) are not full sentences so they should not have full stops. "A co-production between Latvia, Poland, and Estonia" is not a sentence, so it should not have a full stop, per WP:CAPFRAG (I know that relates in particular to captions, but the same rule applies here).... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ChrisTheDude, thanks for clarifying! I did the changes. GeraldWL 18:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 20:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments
  • Could you place scope on the column "Film title used in nomination"?
    I don't really understand. Can you clarify what a scope on the column is? New to this. I'll do them later on.
    No worries - it isn't necessary. I tried doing it myself, but it wasn't working for some reason... Chris or TRM may be able to help you. ~ HAL333 19:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did the first row, just copy that formatting -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ChrisTheDude, is it now good? GeraldWL 03:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "External commentaries" notes seem to be a little too specific for the scope of this article.
    I think to note the response of the creators of the film is noteworthy and doesn't deviate. I do find the second excom a bit sketchy; if you feel strongly I can remove it.
  • Why is the "Submission reasoning" note only given for certain films? If you wanted to, you could add a notes column to the table for any exceptional information related to the submission.
    Because those are the only ones sources cover. If you have sources for the other reasonings I'd love to see it.
  • The award category's comitee --> "selection committee" per the source.
    Done.
  • There is a bit of overlink with "chairperson," "panel," and "state secretary."
    Delinked.
  • You should link Minister of Culture to List of Ministers of Culture of Latvia.
    Done. Thanks for spotting that article!

That's everything that I noticed. ~ HAL333 23:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333, I've done most comments, feel free to review them. Clarified or questioned some comments. GeraldWL 05:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HAL333, can you confirm if you support or oppose this nomination? GeraldWL 04:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second round of comments
  • It might look neater if you move the references in the table to a "Ref." column in the far right.
    Done.
  • Sometime you place the quotation marks before the punctuation and sometimes after it.
    I comply with WP:LQ. If the punct is not from the source, it is put after, whilst those available in the source is placed before. Do I misinterpret it? GeraldWL 03:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you place the year in parentheses after the film titles in the lede caption?
    Done.

Nice job rehauling the lede - it looks much better know. ~ HAL333 19:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333, thanks! Feel free to review my changes.
  • You accidentally called the name column "Year (Ceremony)". ~ HAL333 21:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    HAL333, fixed it. Any more comments? GeraldWL 06:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
====Comments from The Rambling Man====
  • [nb 1] should be cited.
Done.
Currently on discussion, see the ChrisTheDude subsection in this page.
  • " the 1956 (29th) Academy Awards" I would pick one or the other (1956 or 29th) but not both.
I prefer having the year and the award number at the same time.
It's unnecessary. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, Why? I think it's worth noting the year it started at, and the ceremony number.
Either one or the other is required, not both, it's nugatory. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, resolved. GeraldWL 12:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for a chance at the" you already wrote "for consideration" so this is not required.
Removed.
  • "the 80th," 80th Awards etc.
Done.
  • "Latvia has entered the competition twelve times" perhaps better to say "has made twelve submissions to the category" or similar.
Done.
  • "2020 (93rd) submission" -> "entry for the 2020 Awards..."
See my response to point 3.
  • Second and third para seem to be wrong way round. I would explain the mechanics of the selection before going on to describe the nominations.
I switched it, if that's what you meant.
  • I really find the [wikidata] links jarring, and don't really think they're useful to our readers. Essentially Wikidata just contains a bunch of metadata fields which is not really what our readers want to read. Is there no article on the Latvian Wikipedia which could be linked using the {{ill}} template?
That's a textual copy of the interlanguage links template, which features a Wikidata parameter, so I don't see the problem. I use a text version and not the template itself because it generates a redlink, and I'd like to prevent as much redlinks as possible.
Wikidata offers nothing to the reader. Redlinks are just fine. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Wikidata does have information, like Wikipedia, just in a shorter, limited, and abstract fashion. Better than nothing. Template:Ill and Template:Wikidata fallback link has given use of WD-linking, and no thoughts on vagueness were shown. There's important info in those metadatas, so I don't think we need to remove it. GeraldWL 07:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata is a list of unreferenced metadata. It is not useful. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed them. GeraldWL 12:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minister of culture has been Nauris Puntulis since midway through last year...
Clarified-- she's the state secretary.
  • Use the {{ill}} template for the Latvian Academy of Culture.
See above as to why I used a text version instead of the template.
Red links are permitted, even encouraged. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They would hold" Perhaps something like "Prior to 2020, a meeting was held.. etc." and then describe the unusual circumstances of 2020.
That would rot eventually, as it implies that it was held directly only prior to 2020. After the pandemic ends, it would return back to normal. So I'd rather keep the current.
  • Table needs row and col scopes per MOS:DTT.
Will do this later; I'll have to soon call this a day. Done.
Done.

That's all I have on a quick first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man, I've addressed your concerns. Feel free to read responses in which I did not do as suggested. GeraldWL 14:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, can you confirm support or oppose to this nom? GeraldWL 04:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, I did the last changes. Can you confirm your stance on this? GeraldWL 08:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take another look soon, but in the meantime, the ref column shouldn't be sortable. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GeraldWL 07:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*The line in the second para "New as the panel head in 2020 is film historian and director of the NFCL, Dita Rietuma" just seems odd. Maybe it's me, but it took me a few attempts to understand it. At first I thought it was a person called New! The source states "Film historian and director of the National Film Centre, Dita Rietuma, was elected to head the panel" so maybe "Dita Rietuma, film historian and director of the NFCL, was elected as the head of the panel in 2020". New/newly will become redundant over time too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lugnuts, I've changed as suggested. Sounds reasonable. Any more comments? Or if no more, do you have any thoughts on this candidacy (support/oppose)? GeraldWL 04:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I took a good look at this list yesterday, and that was the only thing that bothered me. Everything else looks good, per the suggestions from the other users, above. I'd def. support this for a FL. Thanks again. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lugnuts, thanks! I've collapsed your comments, if you're fine with that.
Answered query towards FLC coordinators and delegates
====Question to coordinators====

@WP:FLC director and delegates: pardon my impatience, but how exactly is it determined that there is a consensus for a candidate to be promoted? I think all points above have been addressed so I feel like there is a "consensus" that this article is already ready. It's so weird to see a page going silent for days, so I'm just wondering. GeraldWL 12:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates can easily run for three or four weeks and often much longer. I haven't seen a source review. There's no deadline. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review –

  • Forbes contributor pieces, such as ref 1, are treated as blogs and aren't usually considered reliable sources. Unless this appeared in the print version of Forbes, I think we're going to need a better source for that note, which fortunately seems like something you could find pretty easily.
    I changed it to an Academy press release, if they are considered reliable. I took it from the Vietnam article, which is a fresh FL, so I don't think there's any problem. GeraldWL 04:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Emerging Europe (ref 6) a reliable source?
    They are a business-themed news website quoted by various reliable sources like Forbes, The Guardian, Bloomberg, and WSJ, alongside several researchers. GeraldWL 04:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The formatting looks okay, although I'll note that several of the refs have Wikidata links for their publishers, which I haven't seen before. Not really a huge problem for me, but if Wikipedia articles on those entities are ever created it might make sense to change the links.
    Sadly none of them have an article. I'll see if I can make an article on the National Film Center, but I don't have the time to for now. GeraldWL 04:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Turns out Cineuropa has ill-s. I've changed them. GeraldWL 04:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link-checker tool shows no problems, and the links have archives, which is always nice. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Giants2008, thanks! I've responded to your points. GeraldWL 04:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Giants2008, what do you think? Does it pass the source review? GeraldWL 08:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My comments have all been addressed adequately. Fix Alexandra's source-related comment below and I'll consider it a pass from my perspective. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Giants2008, resolved them. GeraldWL 03:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I'd say that my source review is done. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Giants2008, so it's a pass? GeraldWL 04:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from --AlexandraIDV 12:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Alexandra
  • Is "The country of Latvia" (versus just "Latvia") necessary?
    Changed to "Republic of Latvia", more complete I guess? Considering these films represent the country.
  • During the COVID-19 pandemic, a virtual meeting was instead held to slow the spread of the virus. - this looks like WP:RECENTISM to me. How important will it be in twenty years that they held one meeting digitally (as would be expected) during the pandemic?
    Tweaked, see what you think.
  • The alphabetical sort function does not work on the director column. You should use {{Sortname}} for all of them, so that they are sorted by family name.
    Will do this soon. Done.
  • The panel noted that the film is... - only use "noted" when what's said is a straight-forward fact, not when there's any subjectivity involved. This goes for every use of the word.
    Tweaked.
  • In the virtual meeting, the panel said - as above, I don't think a meeting being virtual is important enough to note - I would just call it "the meeting".
    Done.
  • What Silent Gerda Knows by Jevgeņijs Paškēvičs and The Sign Painter by Viesturs Kairish - unless these films truly were created by one person each, I would expect "direced by..." (or whatever role they had) rather than just "by". Same goes for later instances of "[film] by [person]"
    Done.
  • Looks good otherwise. Please ping me when you have addressed the above or if you have any questions, and I will take another look!--AlexandraIDV 18:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alexandra IDV, resolved all your comments. GeraldWL 10:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand what you're going for with In uncertain times, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual meetings are instead held. (generalizing to avoid recentism), but the source cited for the sentence does not support that claim. In fact, it does not even say (even though we all know) that the virtual meeting is connected to the pandemic, or to "uncertain times" more generally. This only strengthens my suspicion that bringing up the virtual meeting is making it out to be a bigger deal than it really is - people have switched to video call meetings everywhere, and it's almost assumed that that's how meetings are handled in these times. I really don't think it's worth commenting on. On the other hand, the source mentions that the selection criteria were different this time, with theatrical releases no longer being mandatory - this seems more important to me.
    I can confirm that the rest of the issues I brought up have all been resolved, although you seem to accidentally have inserted several invisible <nowiki> and <small> tags throughout the article (presumably the visual editor not working as intended) - these should be cleaned up.--AlexandraIDV 18:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alexandra IDV, after checking I can confirm that the stance meets WP:TRIVIA, so I've removed them. As you said, everyone has switched, so assumption is warranted. I've alao fixed the nowiki-smalls— they must've been caused by VE, so I'll have to maintain the page frequently. I'll see if I could include the criteria thing, but hopefully that doesn't affect this candidacy. GeraldWL 03:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: as for the theatrical thing, I don't think it warrants a space here. The award article itself would probably be appropriate. GeraldWL 03:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, and that's fair regarding the theatrical showing criteria. I removed one more instance of small tags, and think the article is looking good now - thank you for your work!--AlexandraIDV 12:58, 21 January 2021 (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_list_candidates/List_of_Latvian_submissions_for_the_Academy_Award_for_Best_International_Feature_Film/archive1&oldid=1073193657"