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

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 22:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so to start, there's lots of new ((fact)) tags, in addition to earlier ones and one asking for clarification. All of these existed as of when you nominated the article, which qualifies as a "quickfail". That said, I'm wanting to see this article through to GA status. Please start to clean things up. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your guidance on this. I'm not a major contributor to the article but felt, like you, that this should be GA or better and wanted to do what was needed to get it there. Thanks for taking the time to review it. I'll be working on these changes over the coming week (a bit slower than usual given the holidays). Lemurbaby (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• Walt Disney Animated Classics series has a ref on it. Down in Home media, you only discuss the WD Masterpiece Collection. Everything in the lead should be in the article, and there shouldn't be refs in the lead. Really, the title is rather dubious to have in the lead at all, just a modern marketing title.

• I moved the ref and that content into the body of the article. Lemurbaby (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The second paragraph is a little too focused on modern honours for the film. Why aren't either the honourary Oscar or “most successful sound film of all time” mentioned? I personally feel that those are more important, the AFI rankings could be summarized into.

I've tried to make this a bit more balanced between contemporary and modern achievements, but leads are always difficult to pin down. Betty Logan (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

• Solid, but should there not be a citation of the film itself? Or of Grant's Encyclopedia? Plots need citations.

• Sorry, realizing this article hasn't cited Grant at all, it was the other Disney article I reviewed. I've added a citation, as indeed most if not all details are repeated in that publication (even though it likely wasn't actually the source for any of the contributors.) -- Zanimum (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plots for fiction works do not need to be sourced, since the work itself serves as the source. See WP:FILMPLOT. Betty Logan (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Design

• First para needs cleanup.

• Edited. Lemurbaby (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That works. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cinematic influences

• Break the 106 word sentence up. Please.

• Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merci. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rereleases

• What's 4K resolution? 4 megapixels? 4000 pixels high? There's an extremely direct solution to this.

• Hint, it involves square brackets. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't write this part, so I'm actually not certain what that editor was intending. If you think you know, would you add the brackets? Thanks in advance. :) Lemurbaby (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We have an article about 4K. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Top money makers of all time, as of when? How much money, adjusted?

Don't know how much of this has been addressed, but it's now clear in the article it became the highest grossing sound film. I don't think there is much point giving an adjusted amount because this keeps changing as ticket prices go up. We would have to change it every few months, whereas the rank has been the same since The Exorcist reissue overtook it in 2000. I've added a link in to our own adjusted chart on Wikipedia, so readers can click on that and get the figure. Betty Logan (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

• You need to discuss what the heck these AFI lists are. I know, I loved these lists, but they'd be lost on someone who didn't see the programs at the time.
• There really should be some brief mention of AFI's methodology, the fact it was an industry vote, was it not?

• To address both these points, I've added a short paragraph explaining the significance and methodology of the AFI. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

• Refs 6 and 7 are the same. Merge, please! (This is only one edition of the book, the other being devoted Aladdin.)

• I'm going to give the refs an overhaul here in the next few days. Lemurbaby (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the above changes, a very good start! -- Zanimum (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hope to get this done in the next few days... Fingers crossed, as there's a bit of polishing to do. Thanks for your comments and patience! Lemurbaby (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eagerly awaiting the final few fixes, so that this can be promoted... hopefully you'll get a chance early in January, if nothing else! -- Zanimum (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delays - I'm traveling the next few days and will be home over the weekend to work on this and hopefully finish up. Lemurbaby (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Zanimum (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray, I think between the four of us (Lemurbaby, Betty Logan, Sjones23, and myself) we've got this article on solid ground now. I'm adding mention of some of the 1994 and 2012 publications strictly about the movie, and promoting. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]