Epstein Files Full PDF

Winter Spring Summer or Fall is currently a Film good article nominee. Nominated by M. Billoo at 21:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and then edit the page. Short description: 2024 film by Tiffany Paulsen

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Romance Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Green: What Women Do This article was created or improved during the What Women Do GA edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Green project in October 2025. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in GreenWikipedia:WikiProject Women in GreenTemplate:WikiProject Women in GreenWomen in Green

Hi all. There has been some information that I have found regarding this film and I want to know if they meet WP:RS and WP:N:

• Lakeshore Records as record label for the soundtrack (as per their official website)
• Tracklist and personnel as per the Original Motion Picture Soundtrack available to stream
• Evangiline's music video on YouTube
• Some security issues when fans recognized them during filming, after the release of Wednesday (See the transcript on YouTube)
• Crew member got ill (See the transcript on YouTube)
• Ortega herself was looking for this kind of genre, and she had been Paulsen's first and dream choice for this role (See the transcript on YouTube)
• Release got delayed due to some allegations against Percy White Hynes, which he denied
• One of the sources that I have linked states that this had been a little-known film of Ortega, means no proper marketing campaign...?
• Box Office Mojo giving theatrical gross from one area only
• Mention the term "Premium video on demand"

Furthermore, I have run some wiki-transcripts here in this page, they say that Forbes isn't a reliable source, is it correct? Although, I can see it requires subscription. Also, should the article needs to be expanded to 10x to qualify for WP:GA/WP:FA? I assume there are points here that can be featured on "WP:DYK" since I can see that Jenna Ortega's article is a GA:

• Wednesday pair reunion
• Filming took place right around Wednesday's release
• Jenna Ortega as an executive producer
• Ortega's first romantic role

Although this is just a new film, with not so good critical reception, and yet to be nominated in any awards, can someone please help or guide to expand the article? To the notice, I used to be an active contributor on film articles and had previously (co-)contributed on GAs like Jungle Cruise, Olaf's Frozen Adventure, and Dear Zindagi. Thank you! M. Billoo 20:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "transcript", M.Billoo2000, I think you mean what I'd call "interview". Interviews and Youtube are both problematic as sources. For interviews, see this; for Youtube, see this. For Forbes, see this. I don't know what you mean by "wiki-transcript", and the history of this (talk) page is uneventful. I think you've conflated GA eligibility with DYK eligibility; anyway, a considerable and/or rapid expansion isn't necessary to qualify an article as either "Good" or "Featured". -- Hoary (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: Thank you for your response.

• Yes, I have studied policied like ELP and IV, and that's why I was concerned upon finding more info.
• "Transcript" meant the subtitle part from any YT video (interviews in this case), which can also be copied in text form.
• Wiki-transcript tools: User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js, User:Headbomb/unreliable.js (Sorry)
• Sorry, it might have created confusion, but I am still interested to contribute if this article can any time get up to any of DYK, GA, or FA.

M. Billoo 22:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Went through RSP as well. M. Billoo 22:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about the film aside from what I read in the article; but what I read in the article doesn't suggest that the film is material for an FA. In order for the article to qualify for DYK, you (or somebody, or some people) would have to bulk it up considerably, and quickly (and well, of course). I think that it's already too long for such weight gain to be a realistic goal. Aiming for GA seems far more sensible. In your place, I'd first look for newspaper/magazine reviews of the film. Good luck! -- Hoary (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Billoo2000: Hi! Here's a 20-minute assessment of this article, as requested:

• Copyvio looks fine. Mostly catches proper names and attributed quotes, which is not a problem. Spookyaki (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Fair use image justification is fine. CC explanations for the two actor photos also seem fine. Spookyaki (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Personal pet-peeve, but I don't think semicolons are necessary in most cases. These sentences can also be split. Spookyaki (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Unless it's specifically invoked in the movie, friendzone link is really not necessary. Spookyaki (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not the exact term is used in the film, but its definition obviously suits here. M. Billoo 03:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a controversial term that I don't feel is appropriate for an encyclopedic article, but not strongly enough to remove it myself. Spookyaki (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but I would only defend it because how strongly it feels when one watches the film. When the girl is trying to propose, the boy friendzones her, making her emotional breakdown. At this point, I may have no problem if someone else removes. M. Billoo 02:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The language feels a bit too informal at points. For example, After she had done Holidate... feels very blunt and and little... Sloppy? You could say something like After she starred in Holidate... I have made some tweaks to some of the more egregious examples, but just something to keep in mind. Spookyaki (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

• If you can provide external citations for the cast, that would be nice. However, from what I understand, the movie itself should count as a sufficient source, provided the cast list is in the credits. Spookyaki (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• To improve the prose, I would recommend limiting use of the passive voice. This isn't an absolute rule, but the passive voice sometimes leads to unnecessarily complicated prose, sometimes prose that is too timid. In the worst cases it can lead to tortured, confusing, incomprehensible sentences. The latter isn't the case here, but clauses like Reportedly, this has been Ortega's first romantic role... could be rephrased as Reportedly, this was Ortega's first romantic role... Spookyaki (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

• Reportedly, this has been Ortega's first romantic role and she has also served as an executive producer.—Actually, I'm not really sure understand this sentence at all. Consider rephrasing. Spookyaki (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This one is not self-confirmed by the actress. However, in the very next sentence, it is written that she is not fond of this genre. M. Billoo 03:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it's in active voice, this sentence is more understandable. Spookyaki (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There are a few cases where the language is vague in a confusing way. For example, ...which later became the second most-watched series on the platform. What platform? Or over the time... What time? Spookyaki (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

• After the filming wrapped up, the post-production phase started in January 2023, but the release was shelved.—Do we know why? Or why it was eventually released? Spookyaki (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but what I could assume after studying the online gossips is that because of the allegations against the lead actor and stepping back of the lead actress from all the marketing campaigns due to her career shift. M. Billoo 03:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not saying they're absolutely insufficient for the article, but I'd check on the Lammers articles. See WP:FORBESCON. Spookyaki (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes refs used only as WP:IV or facts. M. Billoo 03:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, it's the facts that would be the problem. They have to be established as facts using reliable sources. Spookyaki (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only facts: film premiere date 6 June 2024, and the term PVOD. Hard to find any other news source giving these facts. Otherwise, Getty Images, Alamy, etc. may show the premiere date. M. Billoo 02:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got. I think the plot summary is pretty good. The prose for the latter sections could use some punching up and the use of the Lammers articles should be reviewed, but with some work, I do think this could get to GA. Spookyaki (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Spookyaki: Thank you for your time in some helpful suggestions. I also request you to please look through the above section on this talk page. M. Billoo 03:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cooldood5555 and Crystalite13: Hi. I do not what is going on; the article has been a GAN for past few months, and a sudden review failed it without any notification. While there are comments above, a certain time should have been given for improvement and feedback. I am also pinging a co-contributor, Converse1991, and I may request re-opening the GAN or any second review. Sad. M. Billoo 08:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at the article, only the review, and sort of took the reviewer's words and left it at that. They seemed to think it absolutely could not be improved in the standard week timeframe, but I could've pushed a little more, as the week long period isn't also a strict requirement. Apologizes. @M.Billoo2000: Crystalite13 (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Please also see my version of the plot summary before it was taken over by the co-contributor. And if there is any phrasing issue under the #Production section, I am here to modify. Please highlight, thank you. M. Billoo 07:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi. Sorry for the late response. I will do that for you after I get out of school today (~8 hours from now) Coolgurl5555 🩷 (talk)(sign) 14:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Plot was still a mess. Awful grammar throughout. I’ll look through production. Coolgurl5555 🩷 (talk)(sign) 23:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  “Ortega (left) and White (right) appeared as teenage lovers; the two also starred in Netflix series Wednesday(2022) while they were filming for the Winter Spring Summer or Fall. The director called their bond as "lightning in a bottle", and called Ortega as the filmmakers' "first choice" and "dream team", while recalling her tight schedule with availability of about an 11-day window.[2][4][5]” is far too long for an image caption

  “which she accepted excitedly.” isn’t encyclopedic language.

  Otherwise, I guess there’s nothing specific, but it does feel a little bit clunky. Coolgurl5555 🩷 (talk)(sign) 23:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Converse1991 for the plot summary. M. Billoo 10:16, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolgurl5555: Thank you for responding. Can you please elaborate was still and clunky in your statements? It would be helpful, otherwise we have re-edited some after your comments. Please remember that my original concern was GAN, thank you! M. Billoo 09:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that at this point it is ready to be resubmitted to be honest. Coolgurl5555 🩷 (talk)(sign) 17:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]