Wikipedia:Peer review/The Care Bears Movie/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
"Who's up for round two?"
This passed the GA mark back in mid-2006, but further deteriorated down the line as standards toughened up and I went on to other pages. Compared to what you now see, it became a nightmare from the time our old friend, AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) (or Collectonian), saw what went wrong.
In response, I have undertaken a long-term revamp that has spanned well around six months, so much so that I've had to delay pre-FAC work on the 1986 prequel. By now, it's become better and better over time, as I've managed to cull source after source from all manner of school/library databases.
What's it all about? Well, look no further than a film that went against the odds: one that was funded by a greeting card company, a rising television syndicator and a cereal manufacturer; was turned down by the Hollywood majors; brought prestige to its eventual U.S. distributor; survived a spate of mixed reviews; saved its Toronto studio from shutdown (forever); broke box-office records for non-Disney and Canadian animation; beat out an ambitious Disney sword-and-sorcery epic; led to a series that has managed nine instalments (despite a 17-year hiatus); and was so popular that (for the record) even John Waters—yes, John Waters—attended a screening!
There. See how much effort I've put into that improvement? Tell me if Wikipedia has any longer and more cite-worthy article on an animated feature, for kids or otherwise. (At this edit, it is 127 KB long with 200+ citations and 15 notes—on par with the article on American Beauty, which served as my model.) As for the lead section? Let me tell you: it couldn't be any finer.
One more film in the Nelvana series is up for review soon; eventually, all that hard work will be good enough for a book on the topic. To borrow a bit from Susanne2009NYC (talk · contribs): "Bears in their little clouds agree."
Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: This seems comprehensive, well-organized, well-written, and properly sourced. I'm not bothered by the long lead, and the too-long tag appears to be a drive-by with no helpful suggestions or follow-up on the talk page. I think the tag could be removed, and the edit summary could say something like, "Please discuss on the talk page if the length is still of concern" or something like that. On the other hand, if other editors object to the length, I don't think it would be hard to compress the lead by leaving out a few details and moving more toward a skeleton. I have doubts that four fair-use images can be justified, but I will leave that for others to decide. I made a few minor proofing changes, adding commas after triple dates. Here are a few other suggestions.
Plot
- "As the story starts, two of the Care Bears (Friend Bear and Secret Bear) travel around the Earth for people to cheer up." - Would it be more clear to add "looking" to this sentence since the bears are not traveling "for" unhappy people? Suggestion: As the story starts, two of the Care Bears (Friend Bear and Secret Bear) travel around the Earth looking for people to cheer up.
- "They soon meet Kim and Jason, two lonely children whose parents have long died." - Maybe "long since died" rather than "long died"?
- "Nicholas finds an old book with a diary-style lock on it" - Tighten by deleting "on it"?
Production
- "and a feature-length film began development at American Greetings' offices" - This sounds a bit odd, since it's not possible that the film began to develop itself. Maybe "and American Greetings began to develop a feature-length Care Bears film"?
- "The original characters were created by Elena Kucharik and Linda Denham, along with Linda Edwards, Muriel Fahrion, Dave Polter, Tom Schneider, Ralph Shaffer and Clark Wiley." - Delete "Elena" and recast in active voice" thus: "Kucharik and Linda Denham, along with Linda Edwards, Muriel Fahrion, Dave Polter, Tom Schneider, Ralph Shaffer and Clark Wiley, created the original characters"?
- "Nelvana had just come out from the production of its first feature... ". - "Finished" rather than "come out from"?
- "Nelvana was the first company to propose a feature film based on the Care Bears, out of several other studios; thanks to the Strawberry Shortcake specials" - Tighten by deleting "out of several other studios" since "first" implies this already?
Release
- "In 1984, some time before the film's completion, Carole MacGillvray offered... " - Tighten by deleting "some time"?
- The quote box and the image make a text sandwich, which is a Manual of Style no-no. In any case, I think the McGillvray quote is too short to put in a box. I'd suggest working it into the main text.
North America
- "The Care Bears Movie ranked fourth place at the North American box office... " - Maybe "ranked fourth" rather than "ranked fourth place"?
- "After three months, it grossed US$22,934,622 in the United States" - Would this be easier to read if rounded to "about US$23 million"? Rounding might be helpful here and there with other similar numbers; this one seemed extreme in its exactness.
- "As a result, The Care Bears Movie's performance disparaged animators at the Disney studios;" - I think you must mean that the animators at Disney disparaged the Care Bears movie or that the Care Bears movie concerned or alarmed the Disney animators.
Images
- Four fair-use images in one article may be hard to justify. Do readers really need to see Swift Heart Rabbit and the Spirit to understand the topic? Isn't the text sufficient?
I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)