Talk:Inside Out (2015 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Llywrch (talk · contribs) 18:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

My daughter made me watch this film 3 times this weekend, which led me to look at this article & notice it is up for GA review. Although I made one grammatical correction to this article, it will be a few days before I provide any substantial feedback. -- llywrch (talk) 18:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Ack, I wanted to review this - this is my favourite film of 2015 (I saw it three times, two with various kids, once with just me and Mrs 333) and quite possibly of the entire century so far, and I think I was just waiting for the DVD to be released before improving it to GA myself. Would you mind if I did some back seat driving? It looks like FunkMonk wanted to do it as well, which means we may have a future FAC on our hands. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm an animator by profession, this is my birthright! I can wait until FAC... FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 and FunkMonk: please feel free to contribute! -- llywrch (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm also an animator (not as profession but as a hobby) and I really want to contribute this article. Can I help with something? --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 09:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, your starter for 10 is : The end of the first paragraph of the sub-section "Box office" is unsourced. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay in providing feedback. Part of it was due to the demands of a father with a job, but the most important part was seeing some substantial edits by Ritchie333 & realizing this article needed a closer look.

First & foremost, this is a solid article that covers the entire topic in satisfying detail, & is mostly well-sourced. I feel this is very close to being GA. (Ritchie333's comment above is a surprising omission that needs to be fixed to be given GA status.) There is also the problem that since I took on this review the article text is not stable with about 40 edits (excluding Ritchie's) & one edit war over whether to say "universal critical acclaim" or simply "critical acclaim". (Sheesh. Someone needs to read WP:LAME.) So the text needs to settle down a bit before it can be given GA status.

The rest of my comments are not that critical, but I believe would improve the article:

• In the first sentence of the lead paragraph, there is a citation on calling this work an "adventure film", which I find odd. Who would dispute using this phrase to describe this film? Anyone who has seen it would agree it is an adventure film, & anyone who disagrees is (IMHO) being a troll.
• In the voice cast section, where all of the cast members have one citation next to their names, Kaitlyn Dias has three. Why is this? It implies that her participation in the movie has been questioned by someone. I will note that one of the sources -- "Inside Out production Notes" -- does appear worth adding to the External Links section.
• Lastly, I must note that the back of the DVD for Inside Out does not mention "Riley's First Date" as included, but it does say "Lava". Is "Riley's First Date" only available on the Blue Ray version?

I'll give you some time to address the two major & three minor concerns, & see if you agree with the changes others have made to this article. -- llywrch (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I've addressed your minor issues of the article in my latest edit the best I can. I'm not entirely clear to what exactly did Ritchie333's comment was referring to. So, can you point it out to me? -- Hasbino (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The second half of the first paragraph of the section "Box Office", you make a lot of assertions about Inside Out, but do not provide a citation for them. I'm guessing at least some of these sources appear in the next paragraph -- but that paragraph is so packed with details I find it hard to quickly match what's there with what's in the second half of the first paragraph. If all of that is too confusing, I supplied a TL;DR version of the above -- I put a {{citations needed}} tag where it appears citations should appear. Have a look. And we can continue this discussion from there. -- llywrch (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I've added the citations needed but had to remove one of the claims (the ninth highest grossing film released by Disney). -- Hasbino (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Q: What makes The Daily Beast a reliable source? There is still an unsourced claim at the end of the first paragraph in the "critical reception" section, and I can't obviously find another source that singles out Amy Poehler and Phyllis Smith's voice performances, which I think we would need. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Well,since I couldn't find a source for that either it will be removed.--Hasbino (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Query

Llywrch, Hasbino, what is the status of this review? So far as I can tell, the requested changes have been made, including the added citations. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, Ritchie333 has made some suggestions. I left him a message on his talk page a few days ago asking about his opinion, but he has not edited in a week or two. If there are no objections, I'm willing to promote this article. (I would have been much quicker with this review, but real life responsibilities have limited my time here.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't heard from Ritchie333 -- he hasn't made any edits since I left that note -- & since all of the edits to the article have been to tighten up the plot summary of the movie, I'm going ahead to promote this to GA status. -- llywrch (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)