Talk:Mirabel Madrigal/GA1

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Lzer in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Krisgabwoosh (talk · contribs) 00:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed

Criteria

edit
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

edit
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Prose is generally well-written and understandable to a broad audience. Minor clarifying phrases could be added in some areas. The use of certain punctuation points—specifically commas and semicolons—are either missing or unecessarily added depending on context and should be revised.   Pass
    (b) (MoS) Article complies with Wikipedia:WAF. Save for some revisions complying with MOS:ELLIPSIS, all should be good.   Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Proper citation list is present.   Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) All claims come with reliable inline citations.   Pass
    (c) (original research) No original research.   Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) No notisible plagiarism.   Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) All relevant aspects—design, characterization, voice, accolades, etc—are present and accounted for.   Pass
    (b) (focused) Article is focused and does not stray too far.   Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    No detectible issues of neutrality.   Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    No edit warring at present.   Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) One image adequately falls under Creative Commons while the other justifies its faire use.   Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) All images are captioned.   Pass

Result

edit
Result Notes
  Pass Congratulations! This article meets all the criteria to be listed as a Good Article.

Discussion

edit
Lead
  • As this is a character, change "that appears" to "who appears". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
    •   Done
  • Specify that this is "Walt Disney Animation Studios' 60th animated feature film". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
    •   Partly done: The studio is an animation studio (as specified in its name) and therefore only produces animation, so "animated" would be redundant and repetitive.
      • Ah yes, that's correct. Optionally, if you're like me and like when multiple articles are consistent, you can remove the "Animated" in "Animated Pictures" and add "animated" back into "feature film". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • The comma before Encanto is not strictly necessary grammatically, though not wrong either. Removing it would bring the article in line with similar articles, such as Mulan or Aurora, Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Prose throughout the article seems to apply the Oxford comma. As such, it should be added after "emotional" in "imperfect, quirky, emotional and empathetic". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
    •   Done
  • Add a comma after "gift" in "desperately searching for a gift but the character's motivation". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
    •   Done
  • Stephanie Beatriz should be noted as the voice actress earlier in the lead. Perhaps as: "Voiced by American actress and singer Stephanie Beatriz, Mirabel is depicted ...". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • Forgive me for asking, but why? I do not think the fact that Beatriz voices her had that much effect on her depiction...
      • Per Wikipedia:WAF, articles like these should keep their focus on a real world perspective. As such, I believe Beatriz's voice probably has the largest effect—aside from the animation itself—on her in-film depiction. In fact, now that I think about it, the second paragraph of the "critical response" section could be expanded to be slightly longer. At the moment, it's mostly just a list of terms describing the performance. Maybe consider expanding it to be about as long or slightly shorter than the first paragraph by making it less list-style. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • "Critics praised the character and Beatriz's performance". Expand on what aspects they praised. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • "Mirabel has also been discussed among therapists". What did they discuss? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • Attempted to expand
      • As this is the lead, no citation is needed so long as its referenced in the text itself. With that said, can you tell me where in the text the "unite her family" part appears? The note about awards should also be made into its own sentence, maybe with a mention of who was awarded—actress, animators, etc—without naming the awards themselves. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Development
  • The first sentence sounds wonky and could perhaps be split into two. Maybe start with "During the production of Zootopia (2016) ..." or something to that extend. Miranda's involvement would do well to be made into its own sentence. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • The comma after "families" in "large extended families" is unnecessary here. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
    •   Done
  • Remove the Encanto wikilink from "her family" and add it to the beginning of the sentence where the film is directly named. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
    •   Done
  • Per MOS:LINK, Colombia probably shouldn't be wikilinked. However, it may be important enought here to warrant an exception. I'll leave that up to your discretion. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • I don't think MOS:LINK is part of the GA criteria anyways, so I'll leave it as it is
  • It is unclear what "position" means in "the vulnerability of Mirabel's position". Perhaps there is a better word or framing that could be used here. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • The quote by Charise Castro Smith is difficult to understand. I better formatted it for you: Mirabel's position is "complicated and awkward and just utterly human and relatable [in] that [she] feel[s] like ... the unspecial one amongst everyone else who’s special and perfect and has it all figured out." Furthermore, the quote should be cited in the adjacent reference using the "quote" parameter. As citation six is used two other times in the article, it's fine to create a new identical citation that also includes the quote. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • Is there a guideline/policy that specifically mentions this? The closest I can find is WP:FQ...
      • You're correct, my mistake. I usually work on articles with Spanish sources, meaning that any time a quote is translated to English, the original Spanish quote needs to be placed in the citation. As all quotes here are in English, they don't need to be added to the citation. Castro Smith's quote is still difficult to understand though, and needs to be changed for clarity. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Add "that" after "said" for "said that as a magical realism film". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
    •   Done
  • As a Spanish word, "Mira" should be italicized. Also, quick note as a Spanish speaker: "Mirar" means "to look". "Mira" only means "look". This is noted in citation ten. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
    •   Done
  • As mentioned with an identical sentence earlier, there should be a comma after "gift" in "searching for a gift". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
    •   Done
  • While "her motivation to be noticed" works, I personally found it a bit hard to understand. Perhaps replace "motivation" for "wish" or something to that extend. Also, add "that" to "stated" for "stated that her". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
    •   Done
  • Add "of the film" to "one version". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
    •   Done
  • Add "the" before "third act" for "start of the third act". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
    •   Done
Voice
Design
Encanto
Merchandise
Disney parks
Critical response
Impact
Works cited
Infobox


References

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.