Talk:Fantasia 2000/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 06:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Terrible, awkward, and utterly unready for a GA review.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Deferred
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Appropriate
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Appropriate
	2c. it contains no original research.	None identified.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	None located with Earwig's tool.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No Coatracks noted.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Balanced reception section
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No more vandalism than expected for this profile of an article.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Appropriate
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Fine
	7. Overall assessment.	Passing after GOCE prose doctoring.

First read through

• "Disney considered to use Clair de Lune..." Gack. Considered using?
• "Disney and Ernst decided to go with Hunt's idea, who avoided to produce an entirely abstract work..." Again, gack.
• "... noting down points where to use color when the music was bright and switch to darker textures when the music felt dark" This really needs a thorough read through.
• "that were scanned into the Computer Animation Production System (CAPS) system" So they were scanned into the system system? Did they pay for that using an ATM Machine?
• "The eyes on the whales were drawn by hand as the desired expressions from them were not fully achievable using CGI." More awkwardness.
• "It was already in production when Disney requested to include it in the film." ditto.
• "Rachel was designed after the Goldberg's daughter" Where does that apostrophe really go?
• "This being noted, the sequence was so chromatically complex that the delays the Computer Animation Production System took in rendering the segment delayed Tarzan." Delays delayed?
• "When Disney suggested to use the Shostakovich piece," even more...

OK, I'm going to quit critiquing the text now. It's pretty obvious that it hasn't recently been gone over by a native English speaker with editing skill. On prose, this is a fail. BUT, I daresay an hour or two of good editing could resolve this, so I'm not failing it entirely outright. Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

To expand, while I haven't identified any other problems besides the terminally awkward text, it's not reasonable to try to review the other elements that I've not yet reviewed, until I can go through the text without needing to point out basic corrections. My deferring them isn't any sort of a vote of no confidence, but rather an emphasis that getting the text into reasonable shape is so important that there's no point in doing any of the rest of the work unless and until it's polished throughout. I will be placing the article on hold, and return to this review once the text has been improved. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I addressed all of the points you made above, and corrected a number of others like you mentioned. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I will be back to it over the weekend. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

"It's pretty obvious that it hasn't recently been gone over by a native English speaker with editing skill." You are not wrong there. I really need to improve my English! I shall invest in a ... for Dummies book on grammar and clarity for starters! Thank you for reviewing the article, @Jclemens:, it's much appreciated. Cheers, LowSelfEstidle (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Second Read Through

There are still a few errors and cringe-worthy things in the text, but you've done a decent job cleaning stuff up. I will be providing more feedback later. For now, continuing on hold. Jclemens (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• "The family join a pod of whales who fly and frolic through the clouds and emerge." Emerge from what? To where? Why?
• "Disney and Ernst decided to go with Hunt's idea, who avoided producing an entirely abstract work because "you can get something abstract on every computer screen" with ease." What is the subject of this sentence: Hunt, or his work? Make the relative pronoun match.
• "The bottom of his toothpaste tube reads "NINA", referencing what Hirschfeld did in hiding it in his pre-production illustrations following the birth of his daughter Nina." Shorten this up and clarify, please.
• "This being noted, the sequence was so chromatically complex that the delays the Computer Animation Production System caused in rendering the segment delayed Tarzan" try "The sequence was so chromatically complex that rendering it in CAPS delayed Tarzan."
• "Goldberg got his research from his former co-directing partner Mike Gabriel who would play with a yo-yo as he took a break from working on Pocahontas (1995)." How many redundancies can you count in this sentence? "Goldberg was inspired by co-director Mike Gabriel's yo-you antics while they worked on Pocahontas", maybe?
• The whole critical reaction section feels like too much there: you've got multiple critics and then portray their reaction to each segment. Might it not be better to give those per-segment reactions together e.g., "X, Y, and Z liked the Firebird suite, with Y saying ..." And then go on to the next segment.
• There's no ref or wikilink for the Phoenix Film Critics Society nom. Source it or lose it.
• Too many navbars on the bottom. Noah's ark media? Really?

There's a lot of other things going on here that simply aren't bad enough to individually call out, but the prose seems pedestrian and labored in a lot of places. I'm concerned that I'm not giving you a fair shot after all the hard work you've done to clean up some of the excesses, as I don't want to be holding you to near-FA quality expectations on a GA, so I'm going to ask for someone else to weigh in on the prose. Jclemens (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Sounds like a plan. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for second opinion. There has been a request for second opinion from Jclemens with regards, after his two read throughs here, for the continuity of narrative in this eleven page article on Disney's Fantasia 2000. Jclemens brings up a valid issue and after reading the article it would appear not to have had the benefit of a GOCE review to enhance the writing in the text. The lede appears to lack the type of confidence that one would normally expect in a GA article. Paragraph 3 in the lede also seems to use an odd standard of putting commas after all cited dates whether they are needed or not (they are not). Another example is in the long preface in the Production section which dwells alot on the original film which already has its own Wikipedia article. The Production section would benefit from getting to the sequel more quickly and calling it the "sequel" rather than just another "film". The nominator and the reviewer seem to get along well, and the article might benefit from being listed on GOCE (2-3 week backlog) for someone there who is able to do an over-night copy edit of the narrative throughout the article. Its really up to nominator and reviewer to decide on how best to enhance the narrative quality in the current article. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm willing to wait for a GOCE intervention. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• I have nominated the article for a GOCE retouch, hopefully we'll hear from them soon.QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• If article has gone to GOCE, then you may update the request for second opinion notification on the GA noticeboard. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • How would you prefer it be updated? @Fountains-of-Paris: Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • If the request for second opinion has been met and the article has now gone to GOCE then perhaps the request for second opinion should be removed from the GA nomination page. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
    • How does that look? Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Just right. GOCE backlog is about 2-3 weeks and you should hear from them about then. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I note that a GOCE volunteer is working on the article now. Please feel free to ping me once the work has been completed. Jclemens (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)