Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Belle (Disney character)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Belle (Disney character) edit

Belle (Disney character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Changedforbetter (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have spent a considerable amount of time working on it, gathering numerous sources of reliable information and editing its style and form. Feeling that Belle is one of Disney's most famous and recognizable animated characters, I believe that she deserves to have a featured article.Changedforbetter (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The article is outstanding. I particularly like the block quotes. You have done an excellent job. DavidinNJ (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gratitude Thank you very much. Please notify me of any improvements that can be made. --Changedforbetter (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well written, comprehensive, and surprisingly well sourced. As a complete non-expert on the topic, the article covers everything I can imagine ever wanting to know about the character. Fantastic work! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I appreciate you saying that. I've spent a lot of time on the article.--Changedforbetter (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments I'm not sure if I'll post a full review, but I have the following comments:

  • Why is the 'Feminist criticism and analysis' section only referenced to online news articles? Presenting an article by a man in the sexist British tabloid The Sun (which still has page 3 girls) as being a significant work of feminist analysis seems questionable. Searching Google scholar shows that several academic articles have discussed this character, and this article is focused solely on her (though unfortunately the article is written in academic-speak!). Please consult these sources.
  • Are you going to also look for other sources? Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently in the process of looking for some reputable.--Changedforbetter (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be rather a lot of instances of people involved with this character being quoted as saying how good the character is and what a good job Disney did in developing it. This material seems unnecessary as it doesn't add much to the article, and these obviously aren't neutral sources of commentary.
  • Can you provide me with one or two examples of this feat so that I have an idea of exactly what you're talking about?--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure: "O'Hara was fairly confident in her audition, which she described as "one of those auditions where I felt like it was my part and I was going to get it.", "Despite the fact that Beauty and the Beast was her first major film role, O'Hara did not feel overwhelmed by the recording process because "[she] knew [she] had the experience to play [Belle]."", ""We didn't have to be alone, and I think that was very important," said O'Hara. "Disney had to spend a lot more money and time to do that, but it consequently developed the film and the relationship with Belle and Beast.", and so on. To the extent that there's useful material here, it can be briefly summarised without the fairly inconsequential quotes. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I think I've taken care of most of these.--Changedforbetter (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was O'Hara replaced?
  • The source doesn't say exactly why. It does, however, say this: "They did a one-fell swoop of all the older princesses and decided to replace all of us". It is also the only reliable source I can find.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Belle is an official member of the Disney Princess line-up" - are there unofficial members? If not, I'd suggest changing this to something like 'Bell is part of the...'
  • Removed. Changed to "Belle is a member of the Disney Princess line-up". The term "official" is just commonly used. --Changedforbetter (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where Belle and the park's guests would act out a popular story" - 'guests' seems like Disney PR gumpf (theme parks have 'visitors', not 'guests'), and what's meant by 'a popular story?'
  • "On 2012, a new location at the Magic Kingdom called Be Our Guest Restaurant, which will include the castle from the film as well as her cottage, village, and Gaston's Tavern." - this sentence is unclear, seems to have a few missing words and covers something which apparently occurred in 2012 in future tense.
  • "is recognized for being the youngest actress to play Belle on Broadway" - what is the significance of this, and who 'recognized' her?
  • "Belle has received predominantly positive reception from critics" - all the critics then quoted are totally positive. What are the negative viewpoints alluded to in this sentence?
  • Changed to "Belle has received positive reception from critics". Will be changed if negative sources are found.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Given that it's been over a week since I suggested that the available academic articles be drawn on (also suggested below) and nothing has been done about this, I'm shifting to oppose this nomination per FA criteria 1b and 1c. Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I apologize. I've been overwhelmed by the amount of changes users have been asking me to make to this article that I have forgotten your request. I appreciate your time, and understand your change of opinion.--Changedforbetter (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Would you be okay with moving this article from Belle (Disney) to Belle (Disney character)? That would more accurately follow the disambiguation rules for article titles. It would also match better with the sister article Beast (Disney character). And if you're amenable to the move, it can wait until after the FAC process has concluded to avoid any logistical problems while the nomination is still open. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Redtigerxyz Most comments are not addressed. Redtigerxyz Talk 05:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Appearances:
    • Add years
    • Seems to cover only film appearances. Possibly a rename is needed
      • The appearances section only covers Belle's main appearances, meaning films and television series in which she appears as a central character. Some of Belle's more less significant appearances are included in summary in the "In other media" section.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • This explanation seems inaccurate. Beauty and the Beast (musical) also has Belle as central character. Redtigerxyz Talk 06:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Appearances section divided into subheadings, first listing Belle's main film appearances, followed by her television series. "In other media" section changed to "Other appearances", and includes "Disney parks" as its own subheading. Broadway section given its own heading.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I not so sure having 1-2 line/para sections is a new idea.
    • Why are the first two covered in so much detail, but the last 3 hardly any? Is that due to duration of film or importance?

Redtigerxyz Talk 15:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, "in other media" implies that media not covered in Appearances, which is not true. TV series in both.
    • Title changed to "Other appearances", separating Belle's main appearances from those that are less significant.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Belle appears at Walt Disney Parks and Resorts" is out of place in media.
    • Given its own subheading, "Disney parks", in the renamed "Other appearances" subheading.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reorganization of text needed. By media/by appearances. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Film and television appearances listed first, followed by other appearances which mostly includes miscellaneous film and television appearances, including Disney parks, and Broadway is listed last.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • May be rename to "Major Appearances" or similar.

Redtigerxyz Talk 16:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sources

  • Source 55 is a Docstoc document, but Docstoc is simply a document hosting site, rather than a publisher in its own right. Looking at the source, I'm not sure what it is meant to be. Is it meant to be a musical programme (playbill) or is it simply created by a fan, and is therefore not a reliable source? To conclude the point: the referencing needs to be more explicit as to what the source actually is, and I'm not sure if it's a reliable source.
  • Source 19, 20 and 42 are from IMDB. I'm not sure if they are reliable sources.
  • Source 40 and 41 are incomplete references.
  • Source 31 and 32 seem to give Wikipedia articles as a source. I understand that this is frowned upon in the Wikipedia community??
    • These sources are not Wikipedia articles but instead video sources, which are 100% accepted by the Wikipedia community.--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be an over-reliance on Disney and its affiliates as a source. In the article as a whole, but also in individual subsections, such as "Background and conception". I added the Newsweek source myself just now, but other than that there are only two non-Disney affiliated sources used in the entire section.
  • You don't need the four references you have at present to back up the statement, "Actress and model Sherri Stoner served as the performance model for Belle, providing live-action reference for the animators as they drew the character."

Content

"Mirror, mirror, who's the most liberated of all?" by Susan Wloszczyna in USA TODAY November 20, 1991 lists her as 18 in the 1991 film, as does Charles Bremner in The Times (of London) of November 25 1991 in "Beauty woos bookish Beast".
  • This is great information to add to the "Awards and recognition" section. Do we have a source for them?--Changedforbetter (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Farrtj (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage edit

  • Oppose 1b: I'm not sure to what extent they should be included, but Disney's Belle is featured in quite a bit of printed media as well. Examples include the 7-issue Marvel Comics series Disney's Beauty and the Beast, the 3rd issue of the Accalim-published Disney's Enchanting Stories comcis ("The Book Crook") and a wide assortment of books, some of which are branded as part of the Disney Princess franchise, and some of which are apparently independently associated with the Beauty and the Beast property. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't seen any response about this at all. Perhaps it got missed in the formatting, which I've tried to tidy up a bit? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also a couple of scholarly articles that directly address the character. A 1993 Textual Practice article considers Belle's role as a post-feminist heroine and compares here to Clarice Foster from Silence of the Lambs in this regard (no, really, it does).[2] And the Wayne State University Press-published Marvels & Tales includes a 2003 article that compares Disney's Belle to the pre-Disney incarnations of the character, along with an examination of the character's potential ambivalent expression of freedom of imagination.[3] Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also have a 2b concern with the placement of the Broadway play after the "Other appearances" section. That order needs to be reversed such that the "other" category follows anything that is specifically featured. And there's still been no effort to address print-media sources, so I'm making my concerns an official oppose at this point. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • None Little of my above concerns have been addressed yet (some are now nearly a week old), but an audit of the extant references reveals a huge list of 2c problems that I didn't check for earlier as well. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your references do not have a uniform date format. See #47 and compare to #1. The date in #6 is missing a comma.
  • You've got this problem with retrieval dates, too. Check the difference between #1 and #22. Also #45. And others.
  • Well, your publication dates are all in one format now, and retrieval dates are in another. But that's consistent, so striking those objections. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't format authors consistently. Look at the referenced movies (#31-33) and compare them to most anything else. Reference #4 is another film, but with a markedly different citation format.
  • Still a problem. Look at 30 (Trousdale) and 31 (Knight) where the directors' names are first last, instead of 4 (Hahn) and 32 (Blaine) where they are last, first. Also you've got the parenthetical "(director)" on 30-32, but not on 4. Was that intentional for some reason? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have publication locations for #1 and #39, but not elsewhere. They're optional, but need to be uniform.
  • Reference #6 (Ansen 1991) needs page numbers, since that's a print issue.
  • Reference #19 (Julie Nathanson Starring Roles) has a double period that needs resolved. So does #39 (Storytime with Belle).
  • Reference #43 is a problem; IMDb is not a reliable source. I thought these had been removed per a comment above.
  • What is reference #55? Why is it a reliable source? Docstoc is not a publisher, it's a hosting site. This either needs real publishing information to demonstrate reliability, or needs to go.
  • Reference #71 is an academic journal article. It's awesome that there's a PDF copy to link to, and you're right to do so, but that doesn't mean this is the proper citation format. Journal articles need proper citations to the print edition (which your linked page helpfully provides for you, in the right hand column), and should include doi where available (as it is in this case). This same complaint is true for all the journal articles you reference (which are still not nearly as many as you could be).

Comments by Wehwalt edit

Reluctant oppose What I'm finding is a bit more than a few prose tweaks that I generally offer at a FAC, in addition, especially towards the bottom of the review. There's a number of issues with proper usage and also the plot descriptions (assuming they are necessary) don't seem to have really been checked through to ensure clarity so the reader is not left puzzled. There is much good writing in the article, but this is not peer review and I shouldn't be finding this many issues in a short article.
Lede
  • " fictional character and the female protagonist " I find the use of and here a bit awkward, because the two facts really aren't independent of each other. Perhaps replace "and" with "who is"?
  • "to whom she shows no interest" Perhaps "in whom she shows no romantic interest".
  • Perhaps you might want to stress that the scenario in the second paragraph of the lede is her situation at the start of Beauty and the Beast.
  • "primeval" a bit fancy. Perhaps "old-fashioned" or "conservative"?
  • Changed. Replaced with "conservative".
  • " Belle is the fifth member of the Disney Princess line-up." No doubt, but does the reader really need to know this now? It seems extraneous to the rest of the paragraph. I would delete, or else move to after the words "Susan Egan".
  • " but developed" "but was developed". I would lose the name of the author of the fairy tale for lede purposes, it slows down the action, especially because of the puzzling name.
  • "with critics" Given your use of "criticism" earlier in the sentence, perhaps "commentators"?
  • "unlike previous Disney princesses" Is this a reference to the Disney Princess line I commented on earlier? If so, it should be capitalized because unless I missed something, Belle is not, in-universe, a princess.
  • Originally, I was simply referencing heroines who have come before Belle, not limiting it to just the franchise. But I see your point, so I have capitalized "Princess". Or would you prefer if I wrote "previous Disney animated heroines"?--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background
  • "failing that" perhaps, "when he was unsuccessful". Failing that does not mean what you seem to think it means.
  • "wasn't" contractions are strongly disfavored in the MoS. Please take this as a reference to any other contractions in the article which are not in quotations.
  • I am aware of this, but sometimes I do it subconsciously. I will search the article for them.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should mention, at least in passing, that the heroine in the short story is also named Belle.
  • I am aware of this, but I did not want to say "Belle was based on the heroine, Belle, of 'Beauty and the Beast'" or something along the lines of that. I will try to figure out another way of writing it.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voice
"Actress and singer Paige O'Hara was thirty-years-old at the time, and had read about" Too long winded. How about "Thirty-year-old actress and singer Paige O'Hara had read about …"
  • "Upon hearing that the studio was holding auditions for the film's female lead and, at the behest of composer Alan Menken and lyricist Howard Ashman,[10] specifically looking for Broadway performers, O'Hara, a Broadway actress who was working in New York at the time, contacted her agent, who got her an audition.[9]" This sentence should be restructured, it takes much too long for the reader to learn what happened "upon hearing etc."
Sentence restructured.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "O'Hara's entire audition process lasted five auditions," Eliminate one of the uses of the word "audition" here.
  • ""recorded [her voice]" for it to be "sent ... back to [Los Angeles]" Both quotes are so short I question their utility. Fold them into prose unless there's a really good reason for keeping it as is.
  • "auditioner" Some hasty Google work tells me that it can mean either the people auditioning, or those judging them. Best to have a word which is not ambiguous.
  • Auditioners removed. Replaced with "judicial panel".
  • I don't think the Show Boat quote works, because the recording has not been previously mentioned. Since you are first mentioning it here, you should say something like "greatly admired her work on a recording of Show Boat. Something like that.
  • "The filmmakers told O'Hara not to raise her pitch because they wanted Belle to sound "very realistic."" This sounds very similar to what the "auditioners" said in the previous paragraph. Unless you feel this is essential, I would omit. We get what Disney wanted, a skilled but ordinary-sounding voice.
  • I've included this information because the first mention specifically talks about what the people auditioning O'Hara wanted, while the second talks about what the filmmakers (directors, Ashman and Menken, Hahn, whoever) wanted once she was cast. In my opinion, both are essential.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but they were never included" Perhaps "but none were included".
Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By special request," Whose?
  • "Replacement": This comes on very suddenly, you were just recording the movie and suddenly she's replaced? Perhaps you should mention the works O'Hara voiced Belle in, then say the reason why Disney replaced her (you do not, at present, really, it's sort of implied her voice is deepening with age but you don't come out and say it. I would mention the name of the replacement in the final sentence. Consider moving this subsection to someplace later in the article, it feels out of place here.
Animation
  • I note again, the "Disney princess" If this is an accepted term, then you should probably parenthetically define it at first use with lower case.
  • The O'Hara quotation to The Guardian implies she was also a performance model in some way. Did the animators watch and sketch her as she voiced the role?
  • This is correct. I initially had a quote stating this, but I had previously removed it because I thought it made the sentence too long. I can include it again if you like?--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Appearances
  • "leaving it" I would change to "leaving her village" and strike the word "village" in the previous sentence.
  • "Lead to a dark" It should be "Led".
  • " Back home in the village" This sentence gets very involved towards the end. I would suggest a restructuring and possibly a split.
  • "The majority of the mob is fended off by the enchanted objects upon arrival" Much of the mob. Also, this is the first mention of enchanted objects. As we say in the law, lay a proper foundation.
  • Done. Enchanted servants now mentioned at the start of the second paragraph.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "realizing how Belle has changed him," I think it is not germane that the Beast realizes his change here. It is sufficient that he has changed.
  • "Just before the last petal falls from the enchanted rose" If the reader has not seen the film, this is about the moment he goes WTF?
  • "his enchanted servants" Presumably this will be cleared up once you explain the castle's non-Bestial inhabitants, but at present this is utterly inexplicable.
  • " one ritual Beast" The Beast, perhaps? You have not mentioned whether he is human or not.
  • "during the winter segment" You could set this up better by mentioning the passage of time during the plot description in the previous section. I will be honest, I'm not thrilled about all the recapitulations of the various plots of the shows Belle appears in and I question whether reciting them helps us understand Belle as a subject.
  • That's about as far as I can go and be fair to another review I want to do tonight. Let me know when you want me to look at it again.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The main reason I support it is because "Beauty and the Beast" is a cherished film and Belle is a marvelous animated character. Mickey798 (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that doesn't constitute support in terms of the FAC criteria, which is we're about here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Having been under review for a month, there's clearly no consensus to promote the article, nor do I see the likelihood of one emerging any time soon. You can renominate after addressing outstanding concerns, provided a minimum of two weeks has passed from the date this is archived. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Belle_(Disney_character)/archive1&oldid=1089817807"