The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10 November 2023 [1].

Frozen (2013 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Wingwatchers (talk · contribs) Chompy Ace (talk · contribs)

2013 Disney film. After extensive copyediting and rewriting I have finally transformed it into a FAC. It almost a decade from its November 19, 2013 so I really want to rush this for TFA to celebrate its 10 year anniversary and also to celebrate Disney's 100 years of wonder!Wingwatchers (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

Apologies in advance, but I oppose this nomination for promotion based on the quality of the prose. While I can tell you have put a lot of time and work into this article, I do not think the prose is on the level expected for a potential FA.

Just by looking at the "Thematic analysis" section, I see fundamental issues with the prose. I do not think the analysis is discussed or written well here, and there are sections, specifically the ones regarding superhero films, that are jarring. There are also paragraphs devoted to a single source when this section so the balance is off and it would be better to have a clearer structure overall. There are also parts that read more like an essay than a Wikipedia article. The following part is an example of what I mean: (Performativity in superhero films challenges the traditional dichotomy of good versus evil.).

I have not looked closely at other areas of the article, but I believe this section alone would have to be rewritten, and that would be best handled outside of the FAC process. I would recommend taking it through the peer review process and reaching out to editors who are experienced in film articles. It may be helpful to reach out to reviewers from your FAC for Frozen II. Apologies again. I do not mean to come across harsh, but I just do not think this article is ready for a FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47 I will try to address that in a couple days. Wingwatchers (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, there are fundamental issues with the prose just in this one section alone, and it would have to be completely rewritten, which I do not think should be done in a FAC setting. There are so many issues in this sentence alone: (Like how the superhero genre showcases protagonists with ambiguous or dual natures, Elsa's complexity is played by the actress Idina Menzel who gained fame as the Wicked Witch of the West in the musical Wicked.) It reads more like an essay than something in a Wikipedia article and does not have any links. There are also basic things like Wicked not being put in italics. I'd recommend withdrawing this nomination and working on the article outside of the FAC process. Aoba47 (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47 Yes I understand and I really want to address them rather than having it archived. It will only take a few days and some trimming and some addition there and there. Wingwatchers (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. It is your choice, and I respect that. I cannot guarantee that I will revisit my review, and to be clear, it would take far more than "some trimming and some addition there and there" to address my concerns with that section. I will end my review here. Best of luck with your work on the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for remarking on that. However I disagree, and I will make sure to really focus on this aspect to address your concerns. Wingwatchers (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47 I have improved that section accordingly and added some new contents. Can you go re-review that section and potentially strike your opposition? Wingwatchers (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck my oppose as the section has been improved, but this will end my participation in this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

I'll move on to the prose if this is settled. GeraldWL 03:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis Done. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GWL[edit]

I've put invisible comments to divide my comments based on sections. GeraldWL 05:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 06:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* The first paragraph is quite static and unengaging ("Buck ... Lee ... Lee ... Lee ... Buck"). I have this change in mind: "It was directed by Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee, who also wrote the story with Shane Morris, drawing inspiration from Hans Christian Andersen's "The Snow Queen". Produced by John Lasseter and Peter Del Vecho, the film follows Princess Anna (voiced by Kristen Bell) as she teams up with Kristoff (Jonathan Groff), Sven, and Olaf (Josh Gad) to find her estranged sister Elsa (Idina Menzel), whose icy powers have inadvertently trapped their kingdom in eternal winter. The main cast also includes Santino Fontana as Prince Hans."

Done

  • At the end of para 1 I sugggest adding at least one sentence regarding the themes.

Done

Done

  • "Frozen received largely positive reviews from critics" --> "It received generally positive reviews from critics"

Done

  • "It was the first Walt Disney Animation Studios film to win Best Animated Feature"
  • "it received two awards at the 86th Academy Awards among numerous other accolades. It was the first Walt Disney Animation Studios film to win Best Animated Feature" --> "received two awards at the 86th Academy Awards among numerous other accolades, making it the first Disney film to win Best Animated Feature"

Done

  • "overtaking Toy Story 3" --> "overtaking Toy Story 3 (2010)"

Done

  • "in November 2019" --> "in 2019"

Done

  • I think the mention that their parents are "the King and Queen" is pretty self-explanatory; "the King and Queen are lost at sea" can also be changed to "their parents"

Done

Done

  • "but she remains distant from Anna. Anna and Hans develop a romantic connection during the festivities, and he impulsively proposes to her, but Elsa objects when they seek her blessing" --> "but she remains distant from Anna, who develops a romantic bond with Hans during the festivities but is objected by Elsa."

Done

  • Link iceman

Done

  • "An attack by wolves damages Kristoff's sleigh beyond repair. Forced to continue the journey on foot, Anna and Kristoff meet Olaf" --> "After an attack by wolves damages Kristoff's sleigh, they continue the journey on foot, discovering Olaf"

Done

  • "whom the Duke secretly gave orders to kill Elsa"-- remove "gave"

Done

  • "Anna eventually reaches the ice palace and reveals what has become of Arendelle to Elsa, who does not know how to undo her magic."
  • "so Hans can give her true love's kiss" --> "so Hans can kiss her"

Done

  • "she has escaped her detention cell"-- what detention cell?

Clarified

  • "Anna is freed by Olaf, and they venture into the blizzard outside to meet Kristoff, whom Olaf has revealed is in love with her." --> "Anna is freed by Olaf and they meet Kristoff, whom Olaf has revealed is in love with her."

Done

  • Rm comma in "8-year-old, young Elsa" and the one below

Done

  • Rm link to iceman as duplicate, if iceman is to be linked in Plot

Removed

  • Link: traditional animation, first act, ripple effect, plot twist, inner conflict, Brooklyn accent, test screening, Phoenix Arizona, Broadway theater, iPhone, table-read, rrosemaling

Done

  • The first sub can simply be renamed Background

Done

  • Add "Illustration of" at the start of the caption

Done

  • "to impress Erica (Gerda)"-- what does the brackets mean?

Removed

  • "chief executive officer of The Walt Disney Company"-- decaps "the"

Part of the name

  • "with Oscar-winning director" --> "with Academy Award-winning director"

Dobe

  • Hyphenate "prince kissing the princess"

Done

  • "and Megan Mullally was set to play Elsa"-- voice, not play

Done

  • "the project entered a period of development challenges"-- r u referring to development hell?

Linked; dont want to mention it directly

  • Any mentions of "Prince Hans" can be trimmed to just "Hans", since you also don't refer to Elsa all the time as Princess Elsa

Done

  • "The Lopezs'"-- since they have not been introduced before this point, introduce them here; later in the Music section you can just refer to them as the Lopezs.

Done

  • "transformed Elsa into a more intricate, vulnerable, and sympathetic character. The songwriters portrayed Elsa as a frightened girl grappling to control and accept her gift rather than a villain." --> "transformed Elsa into a more intricate, vulnerable, and sympathetic character, grappling to control and accept her gift rather than a villain."

Done

  • The "I take pride in bringing out those qualities in the character" part can be removed since it doesnt provide any substance

Removed

  • At Casting's last paragraph, some actors are not linked

Linked

  • The next section is called "Animation and cinematography", but I don't see mentions of the cinematographer; I found this source by Emanuel Levy which you can use to expand on this section; for example, it stated that one frame in the "Let it go" scene took 30 hours to render.

Expanded

  • Elaborate who Dr. Kenneth is (physicist) and link him (also add the "G."). Overall I don't have other complaints about the section since I'm also familiar with the animation process, but bear in mind other layman editors might have other questions

Linked

  • Shouldn't the design section be before Animation? Since the design is what led to the animation, not vice versa?

Relocated

  • "The composers worked remotely from New York City"

Fixed

Linked

  • The localization is unique since I've never seen such sections in any article, but it's a good cherry on top for the comprehensiveness. I do question however, the lack of an editing section-- not animation, but editing.

The editing section is not possible because it has never appear in any past Disney FA films like Atlantis: The Lost Empire due to Disney's lack of emphasis on their film's editing aspects and the lack of reliable sources in circulation. @Gerald Waldo Luis: I believe I have addressed all of the above comments. Wingwatchers (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link meritocracy, patriarchal, double standards, heteronormativity, trope, character arc, capitalized

Linked except for capitalized because there is no corresponding article

  • You pointed out that Stevens noted Elsa transforms by applying a more alluring fashion, but then pointed the limited self-actualization, then compared it to films which do what Elsa does. I feel like the "limited part" can be in the very last sentence of the paragraph as like "Despite this, it's limited in self-actualization." If this doesn't work too I'd love a clarification.

Relocated to second par

  • I enjoy reading this section, although I found parallels of it with the controversies section which elaborated more on the sexist and LGBTQ undertones; it might be able to weave into the Themes section albeit with a few trims so as to not make it too wordy.

I weaved The Atlantic and Geal's statment back into the Themes section

  • "Su Holmes and Robert Geal said Frozen misrepresents social identities. Holmes said it portrays a socially constructed nature of female identity and promotes thinness as beauty, raising concerns related to issues such as eating disorders." Quite a lot of names here, I think you can trim it to "Several scholars said that Frozen misrepresents social identities, featuring a socially constructed nature of female identity and promoting thinness as beauty, raising concerns related to issues such as eating disorders."

This is factually inaccurate because Holmes said that. However, I have changed it to "Several scholars said Frozen defies traditional social identities" to reflect all passages

  • I'd say be careful with sources like Laili which are theses; FAs generally refrain from them (except for PhD, this is just S1) since they're in a way self-published. I won't be doing spotchecks, but just know that it might be something source reviewers can bring up.

Hmm. I am not sure why academic reliability is relevant here because we are citing themes anyone can analyze even without a PHD as opposed to the more technical medical articles

  • "Fariha Laili said Frozen promotes feminism" --> "...said that the film promotes..."

Done

  • "and determining her future as well as that of Arendelle" --> "and determining the future"

Done

  • "She denies Anna's immature marriage request"-- remove immature since it's subjective, the explanation that follows it has a more objective vibe.

Removed

  • "According to Geal, Stephani Linando, and Ryan Bunch, Frozen departs from" --> "Some found Frozen to depart from"

Well I have to attribute them here because the following passages come from their work

  • "Bunch said, unlike the traditional"-- "Bunch said" can be trimmed since it's quite a neutral observation of the plot.

Removed

  • "It conveys the separation and confinement and between Anna and Elsa"-- duplicate and?

Fixed

  • "While Elsa and Anna follow" --> "While they follow"

Fixed

  • "showcasing their growth from childhood to adolescence and depicting the death of their parents" --> "blending their coming-of-age story with grief for their parents."

Already done

  • "establishes a poignant emotional connection"-- poignant is subjective

I am not sure. I am inclined that is supposed to be there to empathize on this aspect. If you go to Do You Want to Build a Snowman?#Critical reception right image you will understand exactly what I meant.

  • "Anna expresses excitement about open doors and windows, and being around people" --> Anna expresses extroverted excitement"

Done

  • "takes a backseat" is an idiom, should use another phrase

Rephrased

  • Link D23, Disneyland (which one?), Disney California Adventure, Epcot, Disneyland Paris, Disney Consumer Products, Amazon

Done

  • "with characters Anna and Elsa"-- should elaborate that it's people dressing up as them

Done

  • With a film as eventful as Frozen I'm pretty sure marketing goes well beyond that. Trailers and reviews of the trailers by critics are a major thing too. Also I'd love to see an elaboration on what kind of merchandise were made.

I dont think critics would spend their time reviewing trailers unless is Tyson complaining about the inconsistent snowflakes in Frozen II, and as expected the only things I found is them talking about the directors, the story, and the general background of the film. However I have added the types of merchandise

A quick Google search reveals this review by Variety. It probably wasnt a common thing back then, but a lot of film trailers nowadays do get standalone reviews.
Added

Done

  • "Get a Horse!"-- add full stop

Done

  • "featurettes, deleted scenes, the film's teaser trailer, a "Let It Go" music video, and a short film Get A Horse!" -- > "featurettes, deleted scenes, the film's teaser trailer, a "Let It Go" music video, and Get A Horse!."

Done

  • "Upon its home media release, Frozen became a massive success." This suggests Frozen became popular because it's sold on home media, which is not the case. You can instead say "Frozen's home media release became a massive success."

Fixed

  • This article often interchanges stuff like "UK" with "U.K." with the dots. It must be consistent. Similar with US.

Appears to be already fixed

@Gerald Waldo Luis: I have addressed all the comments. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • "and the first animated film since Toy Story 3" (2010)

Done

  • "reported in March 2014 that outside analysts"-- what's outside analysts? No box office analysts have ever come from the distributors themselves, so there's no "inside analysts".

Removed

  • Link thanksgiving

Linked

  • "Thanksgiving gross"es

Done

  • "Toy Story 2 ($27.8 million)" --> "1999'sToy Story 2 ($27.8 million)"

Done

  • "Frozen became the first film since Avatar" (2009). Add the years for all the other films too, if it's not 2013.

Added

  • Apply consistent numbers. At one point it's "did not debut at No. 1", then there's "Frozen became the nineteenth film".

Done

Done

  • For the sentence that starts with "Overall, its largest opening weekends", separate each country with semicolon

Done


  • While I admire the lack of quoting the critics (which is a good thing), I think most of the attribution here can be dropped if it's not just relating to one person. The repetition of "X and X said Y. Z and Z said A" can get pretty boring, the kind of wording you'd expect to be on lists and not prose. The need for attribution also creates some injustice.

Removing most of the publications would affect the overall credibility of the section. However, I have removed the attribution for the last sentence in the first par.; Removed most attribution and rephrased them accordingly

  • "movie" --> "film"

Done

  • In paragraphs 1 and 2, you mentioned critics who praised the film's storyline, but in para 3 wrote "The story and message were criticized." There needs to be more nuance in that sentence, or you can blend in the receptions by topic (i.e. para 1 talks about visuals, para 2 talks about songs, and para 3 abt storyline).

Reworded story to depth; Reworded the entire phrase this time

  • Seeing that the controversies only cover one para each, I think the sub-subsections can be dropped. Then you can begin the section with a topic sentence like "Frozen has been subject to several controversies."

Done

  • "CG" --> "CGI"

Done

  • "However, a Disney spokesperson clarified" --> "However, Lee and a Disney spokesperson clarified". You can blend both their sentences together since it's basically the same thing.

Done

  • "DiSalvo later expressed frustration, explaining that his words were taken out of context and that people didn't seek the truth before spreading misinformation online" --> "DiSalvo later confirmed such, expressing frustration over the misinformation online, and emphasized..."

Done

  • Unlink homosexuality, it's a pretty commonly known topic

Unlinked

  • The accolades section, while having its own article, must still encompass all the awards and not just the superior ones. You can use an excerpt of the main article's lead's third para: ((Excerpt|List of accolades received by Frozen (2013 film)|paragraphs=3))

Very useful template

  • Isn't FII also part of the franchise? If it's that short of a section it might be worth merging into the franchise part.

Merged @Gerald Waldo Luis: All done. Wingwatchers (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New changes. Pinging @Gerald Waldo Luis:
  • I'm now more firm on the quality of the reception section, with a few comments left. Firstly in controversies, "homosexuality, and "Let it Go" lawsuit" --> "LGBT portrayals, and the Let it Go" song" sounds just right; it's not too broad but also not too simplified.

Fixed

  • Chompy Ace seems to have reverted the listicle excerpt. If it's not really viable for an FA, I'd like to find better ways to make the subsection a bit more comprehensive than what we have now. Something like "Frozen has garnered many accolades for its XXX."

I re-added it back with citations

  • "and a unique plot twist where the traditional villain role was subverted" --> "and a unique subversion of the traditional villain role"

Done

  • "didn't" --> "did not"

Done

  • "Additionally, on the Google Play Store"-- when?

2014

  • Link bob iger, ebay, Frozen (musical), Maelstrom (ride), Frozen Ever After, Random House

All linked but I cant seem to find Frozen Ever After

  • "a one-hour "making of" television special"-- no need for the quotations, since making-of is the legit name of the BTS genre

Removed

Linked

Linked Pinging @Gerald Waldo Luis: Wingwatchers (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved dispute per below
*:::I am baffled by this user's actions and their insistence on not following guidelines and policies. I do not support the FA nomination in this current state of the article. There is a discussion on the talk page and the problem with their writing and the unnecessary and unsourced additions to the lead can be seen here. ภץאคгöร 09:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: In the end I wish to just let it go. I have reverted my edit to his changes with the lead and cultural impact sections but I will make minor adjustments to help it flow better. @Nyxaros I understand you also want to improve this article and is wrong of me to accuse you based on my perspective. Of Course I understand interpretation can vary between editors. I apologize for my behavior throughout the entire process. I apologize for failing to see clarity. Do you think you can also "let it go"? Wingwatchers (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frozen_(2013_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1183794209 Wingwatchers (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nyxaros I have made some minor adjustments. Reassessing it I think is fairly decent and acceptable. My bad for giving you a hard time. I faced emotional issues IRL. Wingwatchers (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition I have also changeds words like "captivating" to "resonated deeply" in the lead to reflect a more encyclopedic tone. I initially opted for the former because I consider it less wordy and more compelling. I hope this helps. Wingwatchers (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JJE[edit]

I've got a request for a source review but I'd like to see the content dispute mentioned above resolved before reviewing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like this is a pass, source review wise, but keeping my caveats about source familiarity in mind. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resolution of the content issue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Jo-Jo Eumerus I made some serious efforts to re-implement and re-adjust his proposed changes, but I am not sure if it has to be marked resolved by their approval, which wouldn't be likely, given the disputed situation and my initial skepticism. According to the talk page, it appears that the dispute boils down to "Lastly, "obsessing" or any related word included in the article is not "completely neutral", you really should read WP: NPOV and also avoid stating opinions as facts. I rewrote that part to make the tone more encyclopedic and neutral, and I don't think reversion would help the FA review. ภץאคгöร 07:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)" to which I have reverted it back to his liking https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frozen_(2013_film)&diff=cur&oldid=1183750173. I have backed down from my side and my belief and accepted his revision for the mere sake of this FAC, therefore I think I have resolved this dispute since we are back at square one by reimposing his edit. In addition, I have approached the editor above privately with sincere apologies, and I was wondering if we all can agree that it is resolved since I resolved it by reverting the article to his liking including "following guidelines and policies" and removing the so-called "problem with their writing and the unnecessary and unsourced additions to the lead". In conclusion, the dispute has been resolved with me backing down and reimposing "that part [he rewrote] to make the tone more encyclopedic and neutral, and I don't think reversion would help the FA review." so I was wondering if this is suffice for you to initiate the source review. Either way, please let me know before you proceed. Wingwatchers (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see what Nyxaros has to say about this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyxaros What do you think? Do you consider the case closed? If so, can you reassure us that the issue has been resolved? Wingwatchers (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the page, and I think the issue is resolved. However, the info about "overtaking Toy Story 3 (2010) to become the highest-grossing animated film of all time until The Lion King (2019)." should be added to "Box office" section with sources. ภץאคгöร 08:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check upon request. With the caveat that I don't know much about the sources or topic, reviewing this version: #3 seems to have a broken link. I don't think The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Telegraph and Slate need an ISSN, especially as it doesn't seem to be very consistently applied. I presume that #30 is a reliable source, in light of this sauce. #45 is using "Williams College" as the author, which seems wrong to me. It's also inconsistent with the formatting of #137. What make #57, #147 reliable sources? #148 seems to have the wrong agency. #162 lacks an author. #224 has one broken source. #236 has a nonpublic source icon, is it consistently applied? Same for #271 and #274 and #296. I don't think academic papers with DOIs need the "Retrieved" time. "info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis thesis" probably needs cleanup, and theses usually are not strong sources - have these been cited by anyone else? Have the sources here been evaluated for usage? I see that the "works cited" section seems to be unorganized.

The thesis was not cited anywhere, but it has been extensively peer-reviewed.Wingwatchers (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I marked Ref#3 dead to redirect it to the archive; removed ISSN which are generated by the built-in citation tool; removed William author in the last1 parameter; fixed consistency issues. #57 has been replaced; #147 removed; #148 is indeed published under the domain usa.today.com and consequently inherit the former's reliability; added author for #162; #224 I checked them but they all seems to work fine; #236 no its not consistently applied and it will be a real pain to do it manually-I have removed their icons; all of the academic sources in works cited are pulled from Scholar including the thesis; removed retrieved time Wingwatchers (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant whether you also checked other sources in that Google Scholar query. I am not sure that a thesis being peer reviewed makes it automatically reliable for a FA; Ealdgyth? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in, from memory PhDs are acceptable, and Masters if by a published author -- I'm struggling to recall if Bachelors are also acceptable if by a published author... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the "info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelor" thesis. In addition, I also want to acknowledge the reliability of another thesis, Laili 2021. Laili 2021 has been peer-reviewed by three people each having at least a master degree and the second person even boasted the title Dr. Reviewer #1 have S.PD and M.Pd, #2 have S.PD and M.Ed, and #3 have MA. Based on the fact that it has been extensively examined by multiple experts, I believe this justified its reliability. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy Tartaglione still throws a harv error for me. #148 in the current text should probably say it's by Disney. I don't see much consistency between which journals get ISSN and which don't. Otherwise it seems like most of my issues are resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Tartaglione url error; specified that is Disney UK press; and removed ISSN inconsistencies. Wingwatchers (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:"The thesis was not cited anywhere, but it has been extensively peer-reviewed" that is the wrong one. Wingwatchers (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will replace this source shortly. Fortunately, it is attributed to only one sentence with a flexible topic and can be easily replaced. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa[edit]

I will review this, probably during the course of the next few days. TompaDompa (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments
Lead
Plot
Voice cast
Production
Thematic analysis
Marketing and release
Reception
Legacy

The above list of issues is non-exhaustive. I am going to have to oppose this mainly on WP:NPOV grounds (but also prose quality and other issues); if I came across this article as a WP:Good article nomination, I would close it as a WP:QUICKFAIL. I suggest this nomination be archived so the article can be brought to WP:Good article reassessment. TompaDompa (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for the comments anyway. Wingwatchers (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I will have it archived so I can work on it quietly. Wingwatchers (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Tompa. Given Wingwatchers' last comment I think we'll treat this as a withdrawal rather than a simple archive. Pls note that the usual two-week hiatus before nominating an article still applies; I'd strongly suggest using that time for Peer Review before another nom here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More