# Talk:Pieces of April

I removed the date the film was shown at Sundance as the release date, since I'm certain this date is supposed to reflect when the film went into commercial release for the paying public. Also, I removed Mandarin as the film's language, as I'm certain this pertains to the primary language spoken in the film. The fact one or two characters speak a few lines of dialogue in a language other than English in a primarily English-language film doesn't need to be noted in the infobox; it mistakenly leads the reader to believe the other language was a major element in the film. MovieMadness (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

1) To me it should be called a trajic comedie, because playing stil and story are built upon this categorie.
2) The two lines which are acted on, the family homerun and the neigbours cooking for thanksgiving are well strained up.
3) The heavy themes  mother Joy's cancer and April generally not being loved as a daughter, not being able to cook,Bobby not finding a right suite and living
in a strange neighborhood are so told, that the figures are real, their trajic is serious and we are fullfilled to have the chance to laugh about them. It#s a good directing distance in. Camera does little but finest work! Nobody burns instead of a (cool) turkey.
The hidden frames imply such opportunities. Happy ends like this, mean real love. Do little and it#s great! At home planet earth.--Danaide (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pieces of April/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 00:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Coming soon... Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Made a few minor prose edits to the article, but otherwise this was an entertaining read. I liked how you arranged Cast in order of how the characters appear in Plot. It's not something I'd normally see in other film articles, so kudos. It made Plot much easier to digest. Otherwise, there really wasn't much to complain about. The article is an informative and well-written read, the only image used has an appropriate FUR, every reference is archived, and GA toolbox programs raised no issues of note. Happy to promote this. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

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.
a (reference section):  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)