This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Brazil and
related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
"Wellington is put off by the funeral of the recently died owner." Presumably you mean the owner of the hotel? Is that character's death part of the plot, or does the funeral just distract the characters?
"running into Kika" He hits her in his car then has sex with her?
"Deborah Young of Variety opined, "Mango yellow is both the jaundiced shade of their broken dreams and, ... , the color is of nonconformity and feeling alive."" This doesn't make sense
" O Estado de S. Paulo said Texas Hotel is "a kind of 'privileged test' of Mango Yellow",[13] while TV Guide described the feature film as being an "expanded version of his 1999 short film Hotel Texas"." Avoid personifying publications- it is writers for these publications who said these things
"Despite critical praise, the film was moderately received by Brazilian audiences." I don't follow
" representing only the twelfth largest audience for a domestic film in 2003." Why "only"? Surely that's a good result?
"with Netto liking that it was "not decorative" and "spare"." I don't follow
Currently, the article doesn't seem to be structured in the most logical way. I don't really see why accolades and critical reception are subsections of release; perhaps it would be best to "promote" them to full sections. I'd then order the article something like this: Background and production // Plot // Cast // Release // Themes // Critical reception // Accolades (I'm not quite sure where to put "Themes", but there you go).
Some of the stuff in Themes (that is, the material relating to inspiration and intention) probably belongs in Background and production.
There's nothing about home media release- was it released on DVD?
Why is it an LGBT film? Do you have a source for that?
The structure is following
MOS:FILM. MOS:FILM#Release says, "A key part of the film's Wikipedia article should be about its release and how it was received." The reception (which include both critics and accolades) is somewhat subordinate to the release. I can separate "Accolades" and "Critical reception" from "Release", though. Some FAS put reception under release, (
Blade Runner,
Prometheus (2012 film)) others the opposite (
Fuck (film),
Mother India), and others pair up them (
Gemini (2002 Tamil film),
Transformers (film)). I guess it's more a matter of style.
Well, I think it's okay; I'm focusing on de facto production i.e. filming and budget, while "Themes" is for ideas.
I'm left feeling that the lead doesn't really summarise the plot as well as it could.
Usually, in the lead the plot is only a summary somewhat like in an advertising to not give details/spoilers, unless these are the focus of some important commentary.
"Cavalli's scene in which he shows her vagina materializes one of the first ideas Assis had to the film.[3]" I'm not sure what this is saying
The first idea that Assis had for the film was this one (a waitress showing her vagina) and that was materialized by Cavalli's scene. I've tried to rewrite it. May be you can help?
Gabriel Yuji (
talk)
01:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)reply
"Couto wrote that the "gratuitous series of aberrations" presented in Texas Hotel was turned into an "articulate narrative and full of meaning".[9]" I don't follow.
Well, in rough words, he meant to say that the sparse and random characters [the "gratuitous series of aberrations"] became a cohesive narrative.
Gabriel Yuji (
talk)
01:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)reply
This is coming together well- the release section is generally very good, though there are parts elsewhere in the article which could be smoothed a little.
J Milburn (
talk)
12:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Ok, I think this review has been going on long enough. While I don't think the article is perfect, I think a lot of that comes down to a disagreement over structure which, of course, isn't part of the GA criteria. The writing and sourcing are solid, and the article contains a good amount of information, answering the key questions. I'm happy that it meets the GA criteria, so I am going to go ahead and promote at this time. Good work.
J Milburn (
talk)
19:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Mango Yellow. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
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.