Talk:Golden Age of Argentine cinema

Comments from LEvalyn

To my eye, this article is certainly ready for GA! Indeed, I suspect it's pretty much ready for FA (not that I have as much experience there). What a thorough and well-organized overview of such a large topic. My suggestions are all relatively minor and not, I think, a barrier to GA status:

• I notice Harv Warnings of "There is no link pointing to this citation" for España, Claudio (1999) and Feldman, Simón (1990)
• The graph of Argentine & Mexican films is wonderfully informative, but it also feels awkwardly large. At least on my screen, it crowds the text a bit. Would it be possible to reduce some of the padding around the chart? I also think the y-axis could be shortened. I also think, for no good reason, it would feel less crowded if the chart were on the right.
• I also notice that the header of the graph is truncated -- if a long title won't fit, maybe just "Argentine vs Mexican film production"?
• If the arrival of sound is the start of the golden age, should the material on the silent film era be spun out into its own different article? With perhaps just a short "background" paragraph, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE?
• I went through a few sections of the prose. There seem to be a lot of quotations that are a bit on the long end. For example, in this quotation: we [Argentine film historians] always say 'in 1933 the industry was born in Argentina', and the truth is that I would say that until Gardel appeared in films, Argentine cinema practically did not exist on billboards; very little Argentine cinema was being seen. Gardel is what gives Argentine cinema that strength on the billboards -- the last sentence is repeating information that has already been presented in the quote. In this instance I boldly cut it myself but the article might benefit from a concision editing pass specifically focused on the quotations.
• Similarly, academic interest from scholars from university backgrounds is rather redundant, three different ways of saying "scholars"; I trimmed that one too, but it reflects a common pattern of minor wordiness.
• Purely a compliment, the range of images is wonderful and they all have very informative captions. They really enhance the article!

I raise a few ideas for brevity in part because the current heft of the article feels intimidating at first glance, but it's so well-organized (very informative headers!) that I do think the article "gets away" with much of its length. Well done on some intensive and detailed research! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I appreciate the comments and that you have made edits as well. Cheers!--𝗕𝗹𝗲𝗳𝗳 (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Plifal

just a quick drive-by from me. i saw this up for gan and took an interest, and i'm incredibly impressed with the scope, but that's also somewhat of a problem. unfortunately this article is WP:TOOBIG, currently on 15.8k words (and that's apparently with only using half the major sources available). ideally this would be cut down by more than a third. to do so i would look at cutting the number of examples. i would also personally change 'critic's lists' into a broader 'critical opinion' subsection and use prose (we don't need to know all the films that were in 18th and 51st place, just a few choice examples the sources focus on).

additionally, a lot of the paragraphs extend beyond the six line recommended limit, making them a little difficult to read on mobile, but getting those down would definitely help in cutting down on word count more broadly. the '1936–1942: rise to international dominance' subsection also has nine paragraphs, subsections should ideally have 2-4, with 6 as a maximum. i would also say a couple of the images are a little close to WP:SANDWICH, and would personally put all refs into {{sfn}} format. these are all merely suggestions, and you don't have to follow any of them.

i hope i haven't been too discouraging, since these are the only major flaws in an article that seems to be fantastically well-researched and comprehensive. i hope you're well, and happy editing!--Plifal (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)