This review is transcluded from Talk:The Little Hours/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 06:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: DrOrinScrivello (talk · contribs) 16:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll take on this review. Initial comments to follow today or tomorrow, and I'll likely make a light copyedit pass as well; feel free to revert anything you don't agree with. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks to be in good shape. Most of my comments will be fairly minor, and not all will be necessary to pass GA – I'll try to note when they're just suggestions. Prose review first.

• Muted complaints from Catholic groups did not affect the film, Did not affect the film how? In earnings? Reception?

• This is there because if the complaints warrant a section, they warrant mention in the lead, but the main takeaway was that they probably helped the film more than anything and nobody cared. I believe the article does say the release didn't suffer, so "did not negatively affect the film's release" maybe? Kingsif (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that wording sounds good. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Kingsif (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Tommasso and Marea meet by a bridge. This seems an odd way to end the plot summary (full disclosure: though I love pretty much everyone involved in this film, I have yet to see it). Did anything of importance happen at the meeting? Any other closure? If not, no worries.

• Oh man, it's a great film and available on Internet Archive! The meeting is er, meant to be, an indication that even though Tommasso has been banished, the pair have decided to have a relationship. They don't say, one of the young nuns notices them and smiles, I believe. It's cute, it's wrapping up their little side plot and kinda thematically relevant, but not a big moment if it doesn't fit well. Kingsif (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I think it's fine as is, just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something (and while it's a shame I've somewhat spoiled it for myself by doing this review, I still plan on watching it – something tells me the plot isn't the most important part anyway). DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, while I really enjoy the thematic work of the film, including on a meta level, the plot isn't even totally necessary for that. If you enjoy the SNL-adjacent comedy of the actors, I imagine you'll enjoy watching it. Kingsif (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Plaza, Baena's partner, was raised Catholic and attended Catholic school; involved in the development from an early stage, The transition at the semicolon reads awkwardly, can this be rephrased or maybe split into two sentences?

 Done Kingsif (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• before Plaza suggested changing it to refer to Little Hours, minor prayer hours, a term Plaza recalled The "minor prayer hours" bit is not quite grammatically correct. I'm not sure the best way to fix it – maybe turn it into a parenthetical?

• I had the same problem - good suggestion. I'll look to address a bunch of your notes in this section together in an edit, so might not reply to all right away. Kingsif (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Kingsif (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Local Italian people were cast in supporting roles, and the casting directors were Nicole Daniels and Courtney Bright. These two clauses don't really work together in the same sentence, and I think the casting directors should be moved to earlier in the paragraph anyway.

• Yeah, this is one where from the sources you get the feeling the casting directors were only really involved with the extras, that Plaza and Baena sort of just rallied their friends for the main cast, but can see how it reads weird. Kingsif (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Kingsif (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• one reason for this being an aesthetic purpose to achieve a bokeh effect Suggest nixing "an aesthetic purpose", it's not really needed.

 Done Kingsif (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• After discussion with Baena she also used a Hollywood Black Magic filter to achieve glow effects in the film. This sentence comes between two discussing the use of candles; it's probably best to move this sentence after those two.

• Is this next to the part about the DP preferring natural light techniques? I think they were connected differently in an earlier revision of the article, that'll be why. Kingsif (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Kingsif (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• and thus a lack of other backlighting (to separate actors from backgrounds) unless there were windows. This needs something after "windows" – "in the scenes", maybe, or "on the set".

 Done Kingsif (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The sets were accurate to the medieval period, but the behavior and language of the characters are modern Is there a reason for the switch in tenses here?

• Yeah, the division of reality and fiction? That set building, real thing, happened in the past. What the fictional characters are like in the movie, not real, use a continuous present a la plot summaries. (Or, you wouldn't say "the characters are from the 14th century but spoke like it's 2017" when describing it.) If the change is jarring, we can think of a way to work around it. Kingsif (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No, your explanation makes sense. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Without a script, Tran took notes on her transitions as they were filmed. Change to "Without a script to go by" or something similar.

 Done Kingsif (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• giving Baena a triple crown of Sundance selections for his first three features Is a Sundance "triple crown" an actual thing, or just a phrase this one Ioncinema writer came up with? If the latter, suggest rewording to "giving Baena the honor of having each of his first three features selected to Sundance" or something similar.

• It is... something people within the niche will understand but not as commonly used as probably necessary to use it without context here. I think your suggestion is good. Kingsif (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• You could always include a parenthetical: (also known as the Sundance "triple crown") DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The sentence that begins Shortly after, Gunpowder & Sky acquired distribution rights is quite long and a bit tough to follow, can it be split into two sentences? Swapping a period for the semicolon would probably take care of it (honestly, I'd probably do the same for about half of the semicolons in the article, but that's just my personal preference).

• If readability/digestibility is an issue, please bring up semi-colons! Sometimes they're necessary to show the reader important context for the second part, but as you say, a lot of the time it can be an easy split! Kingsif (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Nah, most of them are fine, and they can serve a good purpose as you say. It's just when each side of the semicolon has three or four clauses that it can be a bit much. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• it was one of few specialty releases to take more than $20,000 per theater One of the few that week? That year? Ever? I'm also not entirely sure what is meant by "specialty".

• Source doesn't say, but I assume year based on context. "Specialty release" is the term used in the source, so I think we can safely contextualise it but the term should be kept in the article since that's the specific 'record' being referred to. As for the context, I think we could just wikilink to Art film, which isn't exact but will definitely cover it: specialty releases generally refers to a combination of being a genre movie and not having an initial wide release by design. If you're familiar, think A24. Kingsif (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds good, and I think adding the wikilink is a good idea (and I am familiar; I just watched and loved an A24 film this past weekend). DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• making an estimated $249,226 in DVD and Blu-ray sales The cited source currently has that figure a little higher. Probably best to just say "approximately $250,000".

 Done Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• and that The Little Hours was primarily a raunchy comedy so "it's hard to view the film as any kind of attack on Catholicism or religion." Is the quote here a full sentence in the source? If so, capitalize the first word, if not, put the punctuation outside the quotation mark.

• Full sentence in source is While Baena’s film is a comedy that’s both raunchy and crude at times, the movie embraces its own silliness so wholeheartedly that it’s hard to view the film as any kind of attack on Catholicism or religion. - I mention this because, now that you've had me check, I see the summary in our article using this quote does not seem totally accurate! Let me fix that. ( Done) Kingsif (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly suggest swapping the order of the "Critical reception" and "Complaints from Catholic groups" sections. Putting the complaints first is not quite WP:DUE given their "muted" nature.

 Done Kingsif (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Believe that does it for prose. Overall a very well-written article, just some minor quibbles to address. Source review to come. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: Adding a ping in case you don't yet have this watchlisted. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DrOrinScrivello: Think that's all the prose notes, covered, I'll go through the source notes now Kingsif (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

All of the above changes look good. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sourcing in general seems to be fine. There are a number of links to YouTube, but they all seem to be interviews with cast and crew so no real concerns. Ditto the reddit link, it's a verified AMA so it's kosher (also love that Plaza's username is "evilhag666").

• Regarding refnames: It looks like some of the refs use the Visual Editor's auto-naming system. WP:REFNAME does say Try to avoid picking a name that someone else is likely to choose for a new citation, such as ":0" or "NYT". Ideally these would be replaced with meaningful named refs, which can be semi-automated using the tool here, should you so choose. This is only a suggestion, though, and not required to pass the review.

• I actually recently added that script - done. Kingsif (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to spot check ref #s 6, 7, 9, 15, 28, 35, 39, 48, 55, and 75 as of this revision. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• #6: (a) Y (b) Y (c) Y
• #7: (a) Y (b) Y (c) Y, though while I see why you did it, I don't really see the need to cite this mid-sentence, I'd just tack it on at the end, but that's just an aesthetic preference on my part (d) Y (e) Y (f) Y

• Moved [c] Kingsif (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• #9: (a) Y The source doesn't explicitly name the day and number of the tale but does describe it, and a look at our article confirms the info (b) Y (c) Y (d) Y
• #15: (a) Y (b) ? I'm not seeing mention of the Marché du Film in either this or the other source cited at this sentence

• The source uses the American name "Cannes Film Market". Kingsif (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ugh, it's been a long time since my high school French classes, but even still I should have caught that. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• #28: (a) Y (b) Y (c) Y (d) Y (e) Y (f) Y (g) Y

Short break, more to come. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• #35: ? I see that the festival ran from Jan 19–29, but I'm not seeing confirmation that this particular film premiered on the 19th?

• It does say it was the day one screening (at the end of the cast list), but I've also added the official programme as a source. Kingsif (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw the "Day One" but wasn't sure what it referred to; another listing ends with "The New Climate" in the same bolded all-caps format so I thought maybe they were production companies or something. Anyway, thanks for the confirmation. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• #39: (a) Y (b) Y (c) ? This source backs up the 11-week run and the $1.6 mil figure, but in trying to confirm the opening weekend total, I discovered what looks like disagreement amongst the sources. Film Maker Magazine (#39) says $28,338 per theater, which would equal $56,676 total. The Box Office Mojo source which is cited in the same sentence (#4) has the total at $56,676, as does the-numbers.com here (#43) but here (#46) it says an $30,780 per theater which would equal the $61,560 you have in the article. Indiewire also says "roughly $62,000" here (#12). There's probably something logical that I'm just missing here, right? (d) Y (e) Y

• I wonder if that discrepancy is about the 61,560 figure being specifically gross? Of course I don't know for certain and it would be OR, anyway. Since it's Filmmaker and BOM that are used to source that sentence, so I've changed it to agree with the figure they have (and not said gross). It's possible we could add a footnote to say there is possibly another 5K. Kingsif (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks good. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• #48: Y
• #55: (a) Y (b) Y
• #75: Y

Mostly clean spot check, just a few things to take a look at. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

• Article is well illustrated and captioned. Suggest linking The Decameron in second image caption and adding alt text to all images, but not part of the GA criteria. All images have proper licenses and/or fair use rationales. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Article is broad in its coverage of the topic and does not go into unnecessary detail. It is stable and written from a neutral POV. Earwig flagged only proper nouns and direct quotes, and no other copyright concerns arose during the source review. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And with that, I'm satisfied that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article. Congrats to Kingsif and all others who have worked on it! DrOrinScrivello (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·