Talk:Kristoff (Frozen)/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Fieryninja (talk · contribs) 18:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 06:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello! It's always nice seeing fictional characters get more in-depth coverage. I'll look over the article in the next few days. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Thebiguglyalien Unfortunately I won't be able to respond to this review until beginning of September. Please feel free to make any comments and I will respond then. Thanks Fieryninja (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Fieryninja, after looking over the article, there are some significant issues with the sourcing that need to be addressed, particularly in regard to close paraphrasing and use of quotations. Large sections are likely going to need broad rewrites before this is eligible for GA, so I'm going to close the review for now so it can be renominated after this is done. I've also left a few other surface level notes for things that might be worth considering. I do hope to see this back at GAN in the future! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• There are a lot of quotes in both Development and Reception. Quotes should be used sparingly, when it's the only way to convey an idea. Overuse is essentially copying from the sources.
• There isn't much use of transitions in the prose, making it feel like a disjointed set of facts combined into a paragraph (to be fair, this is something I often struggle with).
• The Appearances section should be reorganized. Lone paragraphs generally don't need their own subheadings. After covering the two main films, a brief summary of his other appearances could all be presented at once.
• There's very little information about his role in Frozen II relative to Frozen.
• A lot of the content under Appearances doesn't have much to do with Kristoff. If he doesn't play a significant role in something, then a generic plot summary doesn't need to be included.

References:

• Broadway World is generally unreliable.
• ComingSoon.net doesn't have any information about its editorial process, so it probably shouldn't be used.
• Besides these two, the sources seem generally reliable. They're mostly webpage sources, which generally aren't going to have much of the deeper analysis that really makes an article shine, but a Google Scholar search didn't turn up any must-have academic sources about Frozen. Either way, the current sources are sufficient for GA besides the two I mentioned.

Spot checks:

• Foundas (2013) – This doesn't support anything from the second time it's used.
• Hibberd (2017) – Close paraphrasing:
  • Compare the article Frozen's story was originally very different from the final plot and went through many iterations versus the source Frozen went through many different iterations
  • Initially Elsa was conceived as the villain, similar to the character in the Hans Christian Andersen story versus she was a villain and pure evil—much more like the Hans Christian Andersen tale
  • Anna was a pure-hearted heroine versus Anna, our pure-hearted heroine
  • In the final act, Elsa created an army of snow monsters versus Fast-forward to the final act: Elsa creates an army of snow monsters
  • struggled to stage it versus how do you stage that
  • by revealing him in the storm moments before Anna and Elsa versus reveal Kristoff just moments before we reveal Elsa to Anna
• McHenry (2019) – Good.
• Radish (2013) – Good.
• Snetiker (2017) – Good, although this doesn't seem relevant to Kristoff specifically.
• Solomon (2013) – Close paraphrasing throughout most of what isn't quotation, too many to list individually.
• Wybrew (2013) – Some of the same wording here paraphrases the source very closely.