Talk:Aladdin (1992 Disney film)/GA1

GA Reassessment[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Not in compliance with WP:MOSFILMS: 1024 word plot (at most, should be 700 and for an animated film, not even that), cast section repeats excessive plot and as it adds no new information the voice list could easily be merged into the plot; soundtrack section misformatted and has unnecessary song list when album has its own article; awards should be under reception as should controversies, and TV airings section doesn't belong in the article at all. Also fails basic guidelines of the main WP:MOS regarding the use of tables, lists, tone, etc. Needs a through copyediting with numerous gramatical and stylistic errors.
Much improved, though I still feel the cast section should be replaced with a prose of the casting views and the voices just moved to the plot. By itself, though, its fine as is and all other MoS issues are fixed. Unfortunately, as noted below, still in bad need of copy editing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Whole sections are unreferenced, and seemingly non-WP:RS sources are being employed: Funplaydates (also a dead link), LaserDiscDatabase, IMDB, and disney.wretch.cc.
References mostly fixed, however, looking closer it appears some of the box office section is doing a bit of OR in making claims about the film's performance against others. This for example, does not say anything about Aladdin. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Reception section is, to be blunt, rediculous. Its declared "the most successful film of 1992" yet it has only a very short paragraph of critical reception? The controvery section also seems a bit of undue weight and badly named with some not even really controversy. Cultural references appears more like a trivia list, and the last sentence makes little sense (missing some context). The sequels and spin offs section also suffers both issue - too much unrelated trivia without actual proper coverage of the real sequels and TV series. Attractions is also just a list without references, and should be a short prose section.
Improved, though for the issue with the scene with Rajah, did any other sources discuss this? It seems a bit overblown if it didn't get more coverage. Main issue though is critical reception. It has been greatly expanded, but there are still quite a few sources out there and it really doesn't give a good overview of views. Only six critical reviews are actually noted, which for a film of this caliber is very small. See additional remarks below. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Cast image is unnecessary and violates WP:NONFREE; has a separate list where it is more appropriate. Other two images seem fine.
Fixed.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Considering the major failings in the first three criteria, I was tempted to boldly delist, but will give the standard amount of time to see if massive fixes can be done. Please feel free to respond below. This page will be on my watchlist until the GAR is completed. If the article is not improved or significant effort is being made to improve it, it will be delisted on June 1, 2009.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you didn't delisted it. Shortened the plot (771 words seem enough), replaced/added plenty of refs, turned the table/list (which wasn't my fault) into prose, and removed that image. Will expand the part on critical reception (something I was always too lazy to do...) later, and am willing to hear suggestions on copyediting. igordebraga ≠ 02:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

771 is still way too many. Per the MoS, a film plot should be between 400-700. As this is neither a lengthy nor complicated film, it should be closer to the 400-500 range, rather than over the 700 one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot further shortened by User:Peppage, and I've done a major edit. See if anything else is needed (particularly prose issues). igordebraga ≠ 03:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a decision was made on including that information from the cast, see the talk page. When it's much closer to being done you probably should ask around for a copyeditor. Check the League of Copyeditors, some of them are open to taking requests. --Peppage ^tlk 03:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LoC has been dead a long time. Better to look at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/List of participants are probably better places. For what else is needed, still lots of stuff unaddressed above (including the need for a copy edit).-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, reworked the Music section and Controversy (which doesn't exactly need to be controversial to receive that name). Will search for a copyeditor. igordebraga ≠ 02:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per your message on my talk page, things that still need to be address: the cast list; soundtrack still has an unnecessary list of songs (same list, just made "prose"); distribution/release should be a separate main section & not be under reception; reception should have box office first, then awards, then critical reception; controversies section still not fully addressed; sequels/spin-offs section; critical reception is better, but still can be expanded some and needs some flow work; reference formatting is still greatly needed as several are not using citation templates so the formats are not consistent; and, as already noted, the copy edit. One thing I find particularly concerning regarding the lack of use of offline sources. Disney has a great fondness for releasing lots of printed material for its works, yet I do not see any of them being used in this article to fill out production type information. Have they been checked to see what content is available? Surely the latest versions of the Disney encyclopedias and the like cover Aladdin. Google Books also produces almost 800 hits for "Aladdin" Disney, including some interesting looking works discussing Jasmine as a "modern" princess and her influence on girls, and the issue of Disney's depiction of Arabs in the film. It seems like a lot of great potential content is out there but not being even partially utilized. I've been asked to give the article another week in light of the active work being done, so I have extended this GAR until June 6, 2009.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of offline sources... when a lot are from the DVD? Anyway, added a bit more printed sources (found online), reworked sections again, will try to this "Themes" section. igordebraga ≠ 20:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant beyond just the DVD, which is primarily a primary work. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cast is now not as much "plot dump", describes the characters and creation. Put BO first in Reception, but don't know how to put more into Critical reviews. Added a Themes section, and as many offline sources as a non-American can reach. Only need a copyeditor to reply! igordebraga ≠ 03:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, there still hasn't been a copyedit, and I've already let the GAR run two weeks. Sadly, I have delisted the article as noted above (I've updated the check list to reflect the fixes). With a good copy edit and a little more focus on the reception section, I think this can get back to GA status fairly quickly. As an aside, looking at the history, this article was never actually reviewed in its original GA, someone just passed it without comment. Technically, it never was GA, but since its held the status so long, I think it can be considered to have been GA anyway. Good luck and good work to those who fixed up many of the isuses already! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]