Jump to content

Talk:Flame & Citron

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

English title is Flame & Citron

[edit]

Several sources exist for this - a notable one would be the ny times review: http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/movies/31flame.html. Please don't move this article again, or change the English title, without proper discussion. -Lilac Soul (Talk • Contribs) 23:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for documenting this, as I was about to make a move. A weird translation, but it appears as the English title really is Flame & Citron. Citron is not the same as a lemon, in English, but it is the official English title nevertheless.
RhinoMind (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE Copy-edit of October 27, 2015

[edit]

In response to a request for a copy-edit of Flame & Citron at Wikipedia#WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, I have just completed a copy-edit of the article. After I finished, I realized that "Citronen" was probably the Danish name, and it is paired with "Flammen". in this edit [1] I changed "Citronen" to "Citron". I guess if "Flammen" is used, then "Citronen" should be used. Before changing it back, however, I'd like to point out that, unless the Danish version is in a quote (or the translation at the very beginning of the article), I think the English words "Flame and Citron" or "Flame & Citron" should be used throughout the article. I'm too tired to check now, but perhaps in the place where I changed "Citronen" to "Citron", "Flammen" should also be changed to "Flame".

I plan on reading the article once through again tomorrow to see if there is anything I missed. Corinne (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Corinne. I intend to use their original names (instead of their modified names for English audience) because they're historical figures so I kept "Flammen" and "Citronen". They are referred as such in all English Wikipedia pages (yeah, I know Wikipedia is not a reliable source). What are your thoughts? Are there any appropriate guidelines? Thanks, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not well-versed in this aspect of editing, but I did see a discussion that seems relevant. You'll see the exchanges regarding Google searches. I think it would be a good idea to do a Google search of the two sets of names. You'd be looking for sources in English, academic ones especially, and not Wikipedia articles. See the discussion at Talk:Johannes Scotus Eriugena#Requested move 17 December 2015. I don't know how to search specifically for academic sources in English, though. Perhaps you could ask one of those editors involved in that discussion. Corinne (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC) P.S. I suppose it would be academic sources and other reliable sources. Corinne (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of difficult; becasue both "flame" and "citron" are common words in English and because of the film itself, the results are not so precise. The searches (using the searching link given by JFH in the mentioned discussion) are far more for "Flame" "Citron" than for "Flammen" "Citronen" (though as I said, only in the first page, four results out of ten are not related to them). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gabriel Yuji I clicked on the first link you supplied just above, and when I looked in the upper right-hand corner, I saw a little yellow-orange box. In that box, it said, "Looking for results in English?" and then "Change to English" and "Manter em portugues" (stay in Portuguese). When I clicked on "Change to English", I saw more than 9,000 results. When I clicked on the second of the links you provided, I didn't see that yellow-orange box or even a count of results, so I don't know. Shouldn't we be looking for results in English? Corinne (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Corinne (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we should look for English sources. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 00:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to come across your name again! :) This is second on my "to review" list. Johanna(talk to me!) 00:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I would probably prefer to have it say "a fictionalized account of true events" in that clause in the second sentence.
  • Are there any more plot details that would be relevant to the lead?
  • I would prefer "the director tried to depict war" instead of what is currently there.
  • "Borrowing visual and narrative references from film noir and the French film Army of Shadows" this seems to be important info for the lead, but does not exactly fit with the rest of the paragraph (which focuses on reception), so placing at the end of the prior paragraph would be more appropriate.
  • In the image of Mikkelsen, you misspelled "masculinity"
  • "...three companies—Nimbus Film, Wüste Film and Babelsberg Studio—working on it." I think that the end of that sentence should be "eventually producing it" instead of "working on it."
  • The lead states that it was the most expensive Danish film produced to that date, while the wording in the Production section makes it sound like it still holds that record. Which one is it?
  • "slip himself into any part" Specify who stated this.
  • I would prefer the prepositional phrase "by the director" to come earlier in the sentence, namely after "was chosen"
  • I think it's a little bit of an overly dramatic wording to say that he "declared" the last quote. I would prefer "stated", "commented", or "remarked".
  • Is there any overall topic to the third paragraph of the Themes section? If so, could you put a sentence about that at the top of that paragraph. You accomplish this really well for the other parts of this section.
  • We can talk about this if you don't agree, but I think the content in the style section can be split up between Production and Themes. In my opinion, directors' commentary should be in the production section in a new paragraph, while reviewer commentary should go in a cinematography paragraph in themes.
  • For the reviews—I assume you speak or at least understand Danish?
  • Might you put a sentence on what generally received praise and criticism in international reviews?
  • I don't think "moderated" is correctly used to describe someone's opinion. :)
  • art-house theaters is a more formal term
  • I've never seen the collapsible box you have for the awards before. Considering that the list isn't too long and doesn't overwhelm the article, I would remove the collapsible box and just put it in the article proper.
  • Are there any publications or historians who defended the film or parts of it as accurate?
Thanks, Johanna. I've made all the changes you recommended, except for the second. As standard in film articles, I try to avoid going into spoilers—the very basic premise is there. Waiting for more comments. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabriel Yuji: I have finished my comments. Johanna(talk to me!) 21:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I did the most you recommended. About its budget, it's hard to precise whether or not it was surpassed (very few sources on Danish film budgets)—and I don't know anyway if it's relevant to say if was or not or if it's useful to have a list of films that had a bigger budget—so I guess the most safe alternative is to add "to that date".
About the third paragraph of "Themes", I think Turan's commentary is a summary-like commentary. I mean, it affirms that beyond the other themes of the other paragraphs, there are mix of themes, which is also stated by Derakhshani. I guess Fuchs and Abeel are more romantic-centred but I couldn't find a better way to fit it in the section. Any suggestion? Anyway, I've changed the order of the paragraphs. I think it makes more sense now because the third (that was the fourth by the time of your commentary) is more related to the second and the fourth (former third) is more or less a conclusion as it deals with all the themes that are discussed (Turan and Derakhshani) and mentions romantic features that are secondary.
About "Style" section, I can see what you are saying (the first paragraph fits perfectly in "Production") but it's a bit complicated. I mean, themes is more what content is presented; style is more how the content is presented. Anyway, I'll see what I can do but I don't think a division like director vs. commentators is enough. Guy Lodge of Incontention described it as "owing much to film noir in the intricacy of its narrative and the lush, shadow-drenched stylization of its visuals" is definitely not a theme, for example. Maybe I can move reviewers' commentary to to reception to have a coehisive paragraph on style... What do you think?
About a summary for international reception, I don't have any source that comments on the general reception—I'll look for it but I remember that I've checked probably all English-language sources available. Moreover, I'm afraid to going into WP:SYNTH (see this). Anyway, I'm not sure we have a consensus beyond "it was positively received".
About your last question, it's certainly intriguing and I'll look for it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabriel Yuji: Thank you--I am content with your responses and believe that I can pass. If you plan to go to FAC, I might recommend a peer review first, but it seems on track for that as well. Johanna(talk to me!) 03:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Flame & Citron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flame_%26_Citron&oldid=1207244860"