Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Lion King/archive4

The Lion King edit

Self-nomination. This article has gone through some extensive work since its last nominations, and I believe it is ready to be featured. PlatformerMastah 01:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Much better than last time, much better. My one quibble is, I think the article doesn't need the CD cover or the VHS cover, seems repetitive. Good job! Judgesurreal777 01:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support did some work on it earlier, but very good Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but with just a slight comment though - shouldn't the spoiler warning just be slotted between the plot sections rather at the lead? - Mailer Diablo 03:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake. It has been taken care of. PlatformerMastah 04:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I've archived your peer review as well. (Historically, they cannot be listed simulatenously). - Mailer Diablo 04:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Meets all criteria. This would make a great front page article. --Ineffable3000 08:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object without some improvements. "Cast" and "Songs" should be converted to prose, with a full cast listing as an appendix, maybe. Sentences like this are a problem: "It was also the second top domestically-grossing film of 1994 (below Forrest Gump)." Second top? In "Reaction", none of the major box office accomplishments are referenced. "See below" is not required in the first paragraph. In "Production", computer animation is said to play an important role, but the lead says it's traditionally animated. The contrast should at least be explained in "Production". Cheers, –Outriggr § 09:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed some of the minor issues you have stated, as well as adding references to the box office section. I will also see about converting the songs and cast section into prose. Thank you for pointing these out. PlatformerMastah 12:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to my comments. It is very common for FACs with substantial non-prose sections to be criticized for them, and I still feel it is a problem. With the songs, it's practically a matter of inserting "is" in place of a dash. With the cast, you've got a chance to briefly outline the characters (wow, they even have their own WP articles to take the outlines from) and describe the cast. As an example, did a major cast member say "x" about his participation in the film? You might wait to see if any other opinions on this come up. –Outriggr § 23:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I have converted the songs and characters section into prose. How do they look now? PlatformerMastah 02:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By prose, I meant with no bullets. Some may feel this is minor, but I really think those sections need paragraphs (and also no bolding of every proper noun). I agree with a comment below that more information on critical response is needed. Keep up the good work! –Outriggr § 05:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~No comments on the article, but someone has screwed up the FAC archive history. This sub-page has~~ (had) ~~a trailing slash in its title (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Lion King/), and seems be,~~ (was) ~~a moved version of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Lion King/archive3.~~

Reviewers may want to see the archives of the First FAC and second FAC; the archive to the third FAC (used to bring) ~~currently brings~~ you back here~~, and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Lion King is a double redirect to here~~. -- ALoan (Talk) 08:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I haven't done this in a while, and I admit I really messed up trying to get the archive history right. Hopefully this does not detract from the article's quality itself, however. PlatformerMastah 12:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great article, minor problems have been or will be addressed, apparently. The cast and song sections are fine with me, converting them is no necessity. Especially "Songs" is great as it is, putting it into prose will certainly not benefit the overall clarity IMHO. -- EnemyOfTheState 21:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ Object. Vast amounts of this article are unsourced. Example: However, as the The Lion King was marketed, the studio noticed that the released teaser, which consisted of the film's entire opening sequence featuring the song "Circle of Life", received a strongly enthusiastic reaction from audiences which also whiffs a bit of POV unless it can be sourced. In addition, the article uses 12 fair use images. I don't normally moan about fair use, but 12 is far too many considering we're supposed to use as little as possible and ensure they significantly contribute to the article. Notice how "must" and "significantly" are bolded. -- Steel 22:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed down the unnecessary images, as well as adding references/rearranging sentences to sound less like POV. I will continue to add references to unsourced statements, as well as make sure the images add something to the article. I still believe this article has a chance of becoming featured, and I will continue to keep at it. PlatformerMastah 00:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, added many more sources where they were necessary. PlatformerMastah 01:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still objecting. Although there has been a noticable increase in references, some bits still need a source. ("The DVD release was criticized for its hard-to-navigate system of the bonus disc, its shallow extras and not including the Making of the Lion King show. Still, it was praised for its restored picture and sound."). As for the images, we've gone from 12 to 10. We can stand to lose four or five more. -- Steel 11:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support better than ever. Good use of references and images, and explains everything about the film. igordebraga ≠ 22:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, brilliant accessment. Also, the images are suitable enough for an article this large and in-depth. Wiki-newbie 17:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose excessive use of fair use media, most without fair use rationales. Please read WP:FUC and remove those tha are just used as decoration. --Peta 02:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary images have been removed, and fair use rationales have been added. PlatformerMastah 19:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object: Pretty good. Prose is decent, but gets informal at places (especially in the narrative). Information is repeated (Best Score, etc.). Eliminate spaces between punctuation and citations. I'm not a huge fan of using all that bold in the text itself. The "See also" section unnecessarily includes a number of links that appear in the article body. Perhaps most importantly, more critical response would be great—all I see is Roger Ebert and awards. Instead of using the RottenTomatoes rating, quote from key publications, and allow the reader to get a better sense of what the critics actually said. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 02:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the See Also links that were in the article body. (Minor note. May do the rest later.) Crystallina 16:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This has become an excellent article. I contributed a lot to it, and I'm happy to see that it has improved so much. ~~Chris1219 05:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)~~ Chris1219 09:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object per Spangineer. The reaction must be expanded, Rotten Tomates is not a gauge on how well the movie was recieved be critics (especially since The Lion King came out before the website existed) and does not explain why the movie is consdiered good. Also please merge that one sentecne pargraph in the intro into another paragraph. Medvedenko 22:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Not enough reliable sources to support the material. There's only a few and there's liberal use of questionable websites. With a franchise like Lion King, I'm quite confident there are some more reliable sources available. I would imagine there are even academic papers for the topic or some aspects of it. It's not like imdb is considered unimpeachable, there's got to be better places to draw the sales figures, etc. - Taxman ^Talk 23:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]