Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frozen II/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 July 2021 [1].

Frozen II edit

Nominator(s): Wingwatchers (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted to Good Article by Pamzeis, and Chompy Ace and Wingwatchers

This article, a Good Article, is about two princess who sought to uncover the origin of Elsa's magical powers.

Fixed Wingwatchers (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added Wingwatchers (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages as it can slow down the page load time. This is in the FAC notes on the top of the FAC page. Aoba47 (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Wingwatchers (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Aoba47 (pass) edit

Addressed comments
  • File:Frozen II (2019 animated film).jpg: Everything looks good here. It has a clear and complete rationale, appropriate ALT text, and the source link works and goes to the appropriate image.
  • File:Frozen2 Elsa Hairstyle Animation Development.jpg: The "Media data and Non-free use rationale" box is not complete. There are two areas that have "n.a." and those should be both filled out. I also think the following explanations, "It's too complex" and "I will respect and follow all the rules noted above", are not particularly well-written and I would expand on them with something stronger. I would also make the source link for the image not just a bare URL. The link for the post is a good example on how to avoid this.
  • Thank you for this. It looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am surprised that the article does not use any images from the Wikimedia Commons. For instance, both directors (Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee) have images that could be incorporated into the "Development" section.
  • Added an image of Del Vecho, Lee and Buck. Pamzeis (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification. It seems fine by me, but I think it would be best to get an editor who is far more experienced in image policy to look at these two examples. Aoba47 (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bilorv:, Can you help with that? Thanks Wingwatchers (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The How to Geek article isn't really applicable because "the photographer generally owns the copyright" is only the very most basic rule and photos of copyrighted material are more complicated. It sticks out to me that the photographers doesn't actually own these products—the photo is of a shelf in a private store (presumably), but that likely doesn't change things. I think images like these are often acceptable but I would ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions if the file is appropriately licensed. — Bilorv (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aoba47:, the image violates c:COM:PACKAGING. I nominated for deletion and removed it from the article. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the update. I had a strong feeling that it was not appropriate. The images in the article should be fine now. Aoba47 (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this image review is helpful. If I have time, I will try my best to do a review of the prose, but I am not sure at the moment if I will be able to commit to that. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I tried to add some images about the research trips from Commons but was reverted due to the lack of reliable sources. Disney has not yet disclosed the exact destinations, so I can't help with thta. Thanks for your review. Wingwatchers (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wingwatchers: I found a source that states they visited Norway [3]. Also, in "Journey to Ahtohallan" from Into the Unknown: Making Frozen II, I think they state they visited Norway, Finland and Iceland in 2016. Pamzeis (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Unfortunately at this point I feel the article falls short of the FA criteria on several points.

  • The prose would benefit from a comprehensive copy-edit for clarity and flow. Examples include "which were collaboratively rendered by multiple animation departments, artists, and technicians due to its level of comprehensive difficultness", "from steps by steps", "on the following 22nd"
  • The article also needs some editing for MOS issues - eg "4-note", inconsistent capitalization (eg sometimes "enchanted forest", sometimes "Enchanted Forest"), and easter-egg links.
  • Parts of the article are difficult to follow for those without subject knowledge. For example, what is a "scene prevention"? A "Snowgie"? "Archived sound"?
  • Other parts are otherwise confusing. For example, Scandinavian and Nordic are often used synonymously - what are these terms being used to mean? Also the lead states this is the story of two princesses, but isn't one or the other queen for most of the movie?
  • As per MOS:FILM, was a Themes section considered? Also note that guideline's discussion of review aggregators
  • Some of the sources used are of questionable reliability - eg Daily Mirror
  • Some of the sources aren't appropriate for what they are citing. For example, "Frozen 2 was localized through Disney Character Voices International into 46 languages by its original theater release, while the original was translated to 42 languages. Following the success of localized versions of the first film, which led to the release of a complete set album featuring all the official versions of "Let It Go" released at the time" is all cited to an Amazon record for the complete set - which is sufficient to prove that the complete set exists, but not some of those other details. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be completed. Wingwatchers (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately. Wingwatchers (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you disclose the location of each issue is located? Thanks. @Nikkimaria: Wingwatchers (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, where is "scene prevention"? A "Snowgie"? "Archived sound" and Easter-Egg? The theme is preferred, nut not required, same with a film article who has been already awarded featured status, Atlantis: The Lost Empire. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wingwatchers:
  • "scene prevention" is in the lead: The first completed scene prevention was exhibited at the Annecy International Animated Film Festival in June 2019.
  • "snowgie" is in the plot section: In a post-credits scene, Olaf visits Elsa's ice palace and recounts the events he experienced to Marshmallow and the Snowgies.
  • "archived sound" is mentioned a few times in the cast section: Hadley Gannaway and Livvy Stubenrauch (archived sound) as young Anna, Mattea Conforti and Eva Bella (archived sound) as young Elsa, Archived sounds are used in the Ahtohallan scene for Tudyk as the Duke of Weselton and Santino Fontana as Hans, a Prince from the Southern Isles who tried to take over Arendelle.
  • An "easter egg" is a link that "require the reader to open them before understanding what's going on" (WP:EASTER)
Hopes this helps. Pamzeis (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That clarifies :) Wingwatchers (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:, hopefully, Done.
I appreciate your efforts, but some of your changes have actually introduced new problems. For example in the lead we now have "with many concerning the risk of disappointment, though the obstacle was later renounced due to the paralleled success of the original, and particularly because of the puzzling fanon comments regarding Frozen's future" - it is not clear what all this means. Perhaps a WP:GOCE request would be helpful? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:, how about now? Wingwatchers (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same answer, unfortunately. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about now? @Nikkimaria:. Hopefully. Wingwatchers (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I agree with Nikkimaria that unfortunately, the prose is not strong enough for a featured article. I do not think this article meets 1a. of the featured article criteria. I would encourage the nominator to put this article through the peer review process and I second Nikkimaria's suggestion for a GOCE copy-edit request (and if you do so, make it clear in your request that you want to put this article through the FAC process again in the future). Aoba47 (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is sick of unfortunate, and as you wish. @Ian Rose:, please close it. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wingwatchers, I notice you've put this up for PR now, which I think is a good move before a renomination here -- can I suggest pinging Nikki and Aoba when you've addressed issues they raise above so they can re-review during the PR if they have time... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2021 (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/Frozen_II/archive1&oldid=1067428787"