Jump to content

Talk:Hundreds of Beavers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources

[edit]

Below are two sources from Filmmaker that could include important information. However, they are paywalled. I hope that an editor here has a subscription to this magazine. Jon698 (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon698 (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 or 2024 film?

[edit]

Normally the release year of a film would be easily determined, but this is a special case. Hundreds of Beavers had an unique release system. A lot of outlets have treated it as a 2024 film. Letterboxd included it as a 2024 film and a bunch of award shows that limit nominees to films released in 2024 allowed it to compete. The filmmakers have also said that it is a 2024 film. Should it be changed or kept? Jon698 (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was first released in 2022, that release should be kept in the title. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. It does not preclude us from mentioning that it got a wider release in 2024. Sometimes award contenders get a limited release at the very end of one year and get a wider release the next, but it would be the previous year that would count. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hundreds of Beavers/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Jon698 (talk · contribs) 21:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Plifal (talk · contribs) 11:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


hello! this is my first full ga review, so i hope to guide and be guided through the process mutually as we come to make sure this article meets the standards of a wikipedia good article! a pleasure to be working with you. i haven't seen the film but have an interest in cinema generally and have heard good things about it.

well-written

[edit]
  • the film follows the mos for layout.
  • please remove the space between reception and text in the source code, or add one between every heading for consistency.
  --Plifal (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

lead

[edit]
  • firstly, although it's not essential for ga quality, is there any particular reason that the lead has citations? especially considering they both link to reviews of the film, and cit 4 isn't referenced in the reception section. you can probably remove both since they only reference plot details.
  • similarly in the lead, and throughout the article in general, there seems to be a proliferation of two or three line paragraphs, which isn't the standard recommendation.
  • i would add some basic production details to the lead (was it a long production? independent?), as well as budget & box office revenue and accolades. ideally it should be a couple of paragraphs or so considering the article's length.
@Jon698, it's better, but it's still not long enough for me to feel comfortable signing off on it as good article quality. none of the paragraphs reach the four line minimum guideline, and there's some repeated information with respect to its influences (feel free to rearrange that as you would, but it makes sense to me to keep it with the production information).--Plifal (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Plifal: I made some changes so that the paragraphs are four sentences long. Edit Jon698 (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jon698, sorry for the confusion, but it's not four sentences, it's four lines. the sentence length doesn't concern me, and should be exactly as long or as short as is necessary to positively affect readabilty and the transmission of information.--Plifal (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Plifal: I am having difficulties understanding what you are requesting. Could you make the edit that you are requesting? Jon698 (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jon698, sure, i just meant beefing it up a bit, it just looks a bit sparse. from there i just recommend a spelling/grammar check, we're nearly there i think :) --Plifal (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jon698, ah! i also wanted to ask about references to ryland tews. sometimes their full name is used (e.g. infobox, cast list), sometimes it isn't, is there a reason for the inconsistency? my recommendation would be to go by how he's listed in the film's credits, on the poster it's his full name, so it may be good to use that first in the lead and then just use "Ryland Tews" subsequently, but i'll leave it to you.--Plifal (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

plot

[edit]
  • general comment: i recommend restructuring the first two paragraphs to make the plot a bit clearer.
  • link fur trapper, snowshoes, keg, and beaver(!)
  • "jean awakens in the winter" > awakens from what? if there's a scene transition make that clear in context.
  • "is easily beaten by them" > unclear. physically? why?
  • "an immense profit" > "a large profit" (unless the profit is comically huge).
  • "the rabbits" > heretofore unexplained?
  • "beats up the group trying" > "beats up the group of beavers"
  • "the native latches onto the rocket" > is he credited as "the Native"? and was he always in the scene?
  --Plifal (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

production

[edit]
  • "mike cheslik and ryland tews" > "screenwriters mike cheslik ..."
  • "a scene in seven chances ..." > rephrase this sentence and place it before the prior sentence.
  • "the second act of the film" > "the second act of hundreds of beavers"
  • "Hundreds of Beavers's poster" > "the film's poster"
@Jon698, i agree that "filmmakers" is probably better. will leave it to your discretion, but it makes sense to me to introduce them as such given it's their first mention in the main body. re. point two, it's not a big deal but it feels trivia-ish to me, maybe rephrase to something such as: "in the film on jackie chan, while specific allusions to silent comedies include a scene that references the 1925 film seven chances, in which keaton is chased by a horde of angry women." in this way you're linking it back to the influences on production rather than forcing it to stand on its own.--Plifal (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

release

[edit]
  • place the second paragraph in this section before the final sentence in the first paragraph.
  • place the third paragraph at the end of the first paragraph, making one large paragraph. the information follows on from each other, it's fine for it to be one paragraph.

reception

[edit]
  • include a one-word summary of reviews e.g. "positive" in the first sentence.
  • i'm a little concerned about the extended quotations in this section. try to rephrase some of them, using shorter pull-quotes while getting at the gist of what they say.
  • is there precedent for citing the harvard crimson in the reception section? only this is the first time i've seen it.
looks good, happy with that.--Plifal (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

accolades

[edit]

verifiable

[edit]
  • no problems with the sources, except is the new york sun considered reliable on entertainment news? plus aforementioned harvard crimson.
  • there is no original research as far as i can see.
  • it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  • earwig finds 17.4% similarity, indicating copyright violations to be unlikely. [1]
  --Plifal (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

broad

[edit]
  • i do have some concerns here, there doesn't seem to be much information at all concerning production, i don't know anything more precise than "2019-2020" for filming dates for example.
  • there isn't a lot about the writing, and i'd prefer more information about securing funding + the length of time it took from conception to release. though this may well be an issue with sourcing.
  • add details such as running time to release section. any specific names or companies that could be added to production?
  • i'm satisfied that there is no unnecessary detail.
  • @Plifal: I have added some stuff about the writing in this edit. I also added the runtime in the release section. There are not really any companies I can add to the production section since this was an independent film. They are also vague about when the filmmaking actually took place and all news sources simply list it as 12 weeks across two winters. Jon698 (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jon698 that part is fine then, but i am not wholly satisfied. even a cursory google search for interviews with the filmmakers came up with articles that contain information that could be used that i don't see in the article. for example, [2] [3] [4] [5] Plifal (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

neutral

[edit]
  • i'm satisfied that the article is neutral.

stable

[edit]
  • i'm satisfied that the article is stable.

illustrated

[edit]
  • the article contains one image, the movie poster which has appropriate fair-use rationale.
  • are there no other (free) images you could use to help illustrate the article?
  --Plifal (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

miscellaneous

[edit]
  • please specify a variant of english on the talk page and in an invisible template at the top of the page.
  • all links are archived per link-dispenser. [7]
  • any other categories or navboxes that could be added?
  --Plifal (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jon698: ok that's my initial review done, please feel free to comment, question, realign. if you need time to work on it let me know, but if this receives no comment and improvement by the end of the month then i'll close the nomination. this is very nicely done! it just needs a little more work before i'm happy signing off on it. happy editing!--Plifal (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jon698: great! i've checked through the article again for spelling/phrasing, but with that i'm pretty well satisfied that this meets good article quality. before i sign off i just want to give you a last chance to look over it. if you would like to give me feedback for the review on my talk page i would appreciate any criticisms or appraisals you have.--Plifal (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Plifal I see no problems. It's good to go. Jon698 (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jon698: then i'm pleased to cetify this as a wikipedia good article! nice work, good job!--Plifal (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

final review

[edit]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Did you know nomination

[edit]

(
)
  • Source: Seitz, Matt Zoller (July 30, 2024). "Hundreds of Beavers". RogerEbert.com. Archived from the original on July 30, 2024.
De Semlyen, Nick (July 12, 2024). "Hundreds of Beavers Review". Empire. Archived from the original on July 12, 2024.
Improved to Good Article status by Jon698 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 79 past nominations.

Jon698 (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • QPQ done, new GA, article almost looks good (completely uncited plot but this seems to be standard). There is a less-than-ideal but seemingly acceptable Twitter citation for an award. I do think the hooks need clarification, specifically to mention it's a modern indie film, but more than anything I wanted to bring to your attention that the title "Hundreds of Beavers" makes this prime for a potential April 1 DYK hook. Something along the lines of "...that the Mario games inspired hundreds of beavers?". Let me know what you think. Otherwise, we can go with the first one you provided given a bit more clarity in the hook. Departure– (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hundreds_of_Beavers&oldid=1276138481"