Talk:Troika (1969 film)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 09:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Now this is an interesting one! Quickly looking through the article finds nothing clearly wrong.

Lead

• I don't think the Evening Star source is saying the film's title was "Troika (Means Three)" -- going by the capitalization and what I know from contemporary translation practices, it seems more to me that they were translating an unfamiliar title for an Anglophone audience. Do we have any other reason to believe the film was explicitly given this title in release, such as posters that use it (especially given the known posters in the article don't?). Otherwise, we shouldn't say that.

Clarified it as a translation.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is quite right still. It doesn't seem the actual release was subtitled, going by the posters, but rather this specific advertiser chose to subtitle it when they were advertising it, which isn't that rare for films with foreign titles but doesn't imply the film itself was released under such a title. Vaticidalprophet 17:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• before officially premiering on November 8th, of that same year doesn't need the comma.

Fixed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think the second paragraph expresses clearly enough that the film was lost for decades. "Not released on home media" doesn't rule out other screenings, and the fact Hobbs did so because he was unhappy with it (compared to more common obstacles like copyright issues) isn't clear.

rewrote paragraph to clarify.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Plot

• various items of a symbolic nature -- in what way?

The plot itself has a note saying its constructed from materials I found which state these specifically but I found something that might help clarify it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• A stark contrast to any of the entries in the film may need a source, as it's secondary analysis.

Will add the analysis in the production section.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Some of the currently-redlinked articles may be notable enough to add those redlinks, or {{ill}}s may exist to articles on other projects or Wikidata.

Which ones should I include?--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Gloria Rossi and Morgan Upton both seem maybe-plausible-enough-article-candidates that redlinks might be valuable (they had long careers, but prior to the point of many internet sources). This is optional -- redlinks are neither "mandatory nor forbidden" -- but it's a good way sometimes to point out potential holes in the encyclopedia. Vaticidalprophet 17:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Are there screengrabs from the film that can be added? It seems likely it didn't comply jot-and-tittle with copyright formalities at the time, and even if it did a screenshot would be arguable under fair use.

I do believe so, the problem is finding the right one.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

More comments to come soon. Vaticidalprophet 09:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Development

• It may be worth re-linking Fredric Hobbs here. Also, is there a reason he's named "Carl Frederic Hobbs" in the lead?

Going off of my experience with Begotten, this is not necessary to relink this. Also Carl Frederic Hobbs is his full name, a similar situation was noted in Begotten's review which was resolved in this manner.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Not necessary, but I'm thinking from a WP:DUPLINK perspective, it's useful to reiterate who he is in this section. Not mandatory, though, yeah. I'm mostly thinking about the "artist turned filmmaker Hobbs" phrase and that it doesn't flow very well. Regarding Fredric vs Carl Fredric, his article should probably have an RM if the title it's at isn't the common name. Vaticidalprophet 15:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• "Actor turned filmmaker" is grammatically inaccurate ("actor-turned-filmmaker"), but that might not be the best way to put it anyway. The rest of the paragraph makes his artistic background clear without needing to explicitly mention it.
• Link morality play.

Done--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• I've made some minor copyedits here re. commas, missing words, etc. where it would've been a little nitpicky to mention them without fixing them myself.

yeah, I am still working on that sort of thing learning how to do that.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Linking wikt:тройка may be worthwhile?

I dont think that is entirely necessary, as it would lead to a disambig page. Then again I could be wrong.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

That's an interwiki link to Wiktionary, which gives a dictionary definition of the term rather than a disambig page. Vaticidalprophet 02:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• While usually categorized as a "comedy" or "art film" by media outlets at the time of the film's release, Troika incorporates several different narratives and genres for each segment. I'm not sure "while" makes sense here, as those statements aren't juxtaposing contradictory things.

Just so it flows better, I rewrote it as it is categorized as rather than usual categorized.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Casting

• with many of them making their only acting credit for the film isn't amazing, grammatically. Most of Troika's cast was unknown performers, several of whose only acting credit was the film.

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Hobbs, himself starred in the film as a fictional version of himself, in addition to the characters of the "Chef", and "Fantom" doesn't need the second and third commas, or the first 'himself'.

Done--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• The Thurmond sentence is something of a run-on. It would be more natural to replace the comma following "final segment of the film" with a semicolon, and restructuring the next clause from "with one commentator noting" to "one commentator noted". Also, "noted" isn't the ideal word here -- one commentator described his role as a Christ-like figure.

Done--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Upton's sentence doesn't need the comma following The Candidate.

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• "students activists" should be "student activists", and what were they activists for?

That was a typo, and the source never specified as to what they were activists of. Did digging and could never figure that out.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Filming and post-production

• early to mid should just be "early-mid".

done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• The opening paragraph is very long -- is there a place to split it?

Reworked it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Hobbs later recalled filming one sequence, shot at Fort Cronkhite involving Thurmond running alongside the skyline. While filming the sequence, Hobbs claimed that during the take the military began firing a Nike missile's as an artillery exercise, ruining the shot. These sentences seem...confused. I'm not sure how best to suggest copyediting them.

Rewrote it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Rediscovery

• Troika has been considered unobtainable for many years, with the film never being given a home video release. Given the restorations and the possibility of a future release, this sentence seems like it should be flipped to focus on the fact the film has never been released for home viewing, with the fact it was unobtainable/unscreened entirely for many years in the second clause.

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Reception

• This section needs some work, both prosewise and contentwise. I'll take a closer look at it, but for now I really recommend looking at WP:Copyediting reception sections. Right now the section feels a little disjointed.

Will work on that--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Was anything more written after the festival screening?

Oddly enough there was not.--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Legacy

• Troika's commercial success would serve can just be 'served'. Having said that, this raises content questions. By what standards was it a commercial success? The threshold for a niche art film being successful is very low -- do we have some way to contextualize this?

I redid this to focus on Hobbs continuing to work in thi film industry--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Hobbs' resulting film, Roseland: A Fable (1970), would be a surreal philosophical satire on the porn industry itself again doesn't need 'would be' rather than 'was'.

Done--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• The film gained some controversy during and after its release due to its sexual content -- well, it was just described as porn, wasn't it?

Clarified.--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• This section is a single very long paragraph. There's a natural breakpoint at "In 1973".

Split--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• The first of these would be -- again "was"

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Both films were critical and commercial failures, with Godmonster receiving little to no theatrical release, combined with behind-the-scenes conflicts with producers of both films caused Hobbs to grow discontent with the film industry, who subsequently retired from filmmaking. This sentence needs copyediting, in the same sense as the "Filming and post-production" sentences where they're quite difficult to disentangle.

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Putting on hold. There are a few things going on here, but the bones of the article are good. Vaticidalprophet 17:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks decent now. I've made some additional copyedits, but am willing to pass. Vaticidalprophet 17:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.