Talk:Manhattanʼs 'Little Spain' comes to big screen, documenting Hispanic immigration in New York City

Thoughts
Some initial impressions: (I've no idea whether there are other problems; for example, I haven't the faintest idea yet whether there are any copyright issues here.) --Pi zero (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The lede ought to be more sharply focused; it needs to do better on succinctly answering basic questions. Whether enough can be done by a reviewer during review, I don't know (I'm hoping; that would be a frustrating delay).
 * There's some discursive material that seems speculative rather that factual: "Many have heard the history of Spanish Harlem, but a few know what happened earlier Downtown Manhattan, ...".  Again, I can't really tell now (having not yet immersed myself in a full review) whether this can be addressed by a reviewer during review.
 * Thanks. I added a new review after watching the documentary, that is for sale. Changed lede and cleaned speculative comments -although obviously every single newyorker would say you that he knows where Spanish Harlem is, but will have less (or no) idea about what was Little Spain at the beginning of XXth century. Also, the press release at the Spanish Benevolent Society website displays clearly that the text of is for free distribution, so no copyright issues. --FiloActual (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Review work notes

 * I've copy-edited all bar the last paragraph, which raises the following points:
 * Repetition in the opening paragraph (lede). Photos/archive comes up twice, with the testimonies/interviews in one place.
 * With the above resolved, the lede will probably be a good-deal better; aim for two or three sentence, if three, try and keep them shorter. Frequently a good idea to note your 5W and H for the story, then make sure you're ticking off at least four of them in the lede.
 * Further repetition with-regards to the definition of Little Spain. I'm not sure how to copyedit "located south Chelsea and West Village, around the west end of 14th Street."; is it "south of", or the "southern part of"; nor, without more-familiarity with NYC, as to what constitutes the West Village. I would suggest just using "Little Italy" in the lede, and using a more-verbose definition later on. If there's a map of the area on Commons, that might work better as a "[see inset map]".
 * Final paragraph: Really wasn't sure what to do with that. I'm not one for being particularly-critical of starting sentences with "Also" or "And", but it's really not working in this case. It is referring to material outside the timeframe the rest of the article talks about, which is in the documentary. How it is described at-present needs worked into the film description, with the other projects as the second-last paragraph. If this is based upon having watched the film, that'd actually require some brief original reporting notes "Watched film. Opens with A, covers B, C, D, closes on Z". Might be a good point to pull a representative quote or two for colour.
 * Closing: A particularly good closing for the piece would be when the DVD goes on general (non limited-edition) release, perhaps then citing how many copies of the limited edition are available. That gives closure on the report, with a pointer to a future event.
 * I'm now going to try and run through a few of the other points on a full review to try and give a more-complete set of feedback in one pass. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I followed the indications, and yes I watched the film after purchasing a copy at the official website, but I dont know how to ad that "Watched film. Opens with A, covers B, C, D, closes on Z". Show me an example of an article like that and I will do it. A help adding a map from commons would be great. Yes, definitively the article can look better if we add some changes more.--FiloActual (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be clicking "Add topic" on this page, sticking in "Original Reporting notes" as the topic heading, and summarising the film, as you saw it. That's then a basis to compare what you write into the article against a 'less sanitised' set of notes. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't see the way to do it... I did my best in the article itself.--FiloActual (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The film cover
How can we add it to Commons? If an editor have some experience could upload it. There is permission to share and distribute for it.--FiloActual (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Concluding paragraph
I'd suggest cutting the last paragraph or moving it into the body of the article. The last paragraph gives the reader the sense that we're starting all over again rather than concluding. It's also confusing because it's not crystal clear if the writer is talking about the new projects mentioned in the above paragraph or the one that we've been reading about. The second to the last paragraph works nicely as a conclusion.

Tim Kayson

—The preceding comment was added by Tim Kayson (talk • contribs) 01:45, 9 December 2014‎


 * Not an unreasonable suggestion, stylistically. However, such substantial changes to an article are only allowed during the first 24 hours after publication, per our archiving policy.  --Pi zero (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)