Talk:A Goofy Movie/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: DasallmächtigeJ (talk · contribs) 11:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As fate would have it, I watched both Goofy Movies yesterday. I saw this as destiny pointing me to where I am needed, and will take on the review over the next day. Luckily, I have to supervise final exams for 6 hours straight, so count on me to hopefully finish my review very soon.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it well-written? and 3. Is it broad in its coverage?

Lead

animated directoral debut is a bit mileading, since he directed before. I would simply leave that part out and change it to "directed by Kevin Lima".
would leave the dedication part out of the head section, mentioning it in the text is sufficient.
in the production section, you mention that it was produced by Walt Disney Feature Animation, Walt Disney Television Animation, and Disney MovieToons, yet you mention only two of them in the lead.
you list all actors and in the next paragraph list who reprised his role. Shorten his by writing "x, y, and z reprised their role from the show while a, b. and c voiced original characters" or something like that.
the plot summary could be shortened as well. I would leave out the high school part and everything after fishing trip.
Rewrite the last paragraph. It is unclear what the consequences of the "contractual obligation parts" are. I would write something along the lines of it received little promotion and subsequently underperformed at box office.
I would mention the sequel in the very last sentence of the section.

So much for the lead.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

I would mention that Max fears turning into his father in the first sentence.
I would point out that Goofy takes the trip because he fears for Max's future after the call from the principal.

Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Voide cast

Doesn't Goofy go by Goofy G. Goof in the series? Even if he is credited simply as Goofy, I would change this because he is referred to by his full name, same goes for Max.
Maybe think about moving all minor characters to a single paragraph under the listing of the bigger characters.

Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Production

I would change directoral debut to feature film directoral debut or something like that, as he has directed before.

Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it relevant that Campbell was just 17 at the time?

Done Removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could go into detail into the design of Powerline's outfits, maybe there is information why they opted for the futuristic look.
Is there information about Bobby? I found it interesting that they included an original character who seemed to have a lot of unique antics instead of another character from the series, maybe there is some information on that.
Same goes for Roxanne.

Music

I take it Burwell produced all songs in the track listing that have no writer/performer? Include him as a writer (and additional writers if there are any) and who performed them (likely some sort of Disney orchestra?).

Partly done Added Burwell as a writer but the performers are credited as "[instrumental]". Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Release

I would rephrase the part about pan and scan, as it reads itself rather confusingly. Do you need to mention Cars and The Incredibles? I feel leaving that out and restructuring the rest a bit would make this much easier to read.
I would mention the part about Katzenberg here, as it impacted the release, rather then the legacy. Also go into detail here, what is meant by contractual obligation and how did it impact the film/its release? That is really unclear as of yet.

Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

I would mention that it was not released theatrically in most oversea territories when talking about its grosses there.

Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You only give contemporary reviews. As far as I am aware of, he was viewed much more positively as time passed. Write a paragraph containing retrospective reviews if available.
Maybe create a table containing the accolades/nominations in addition to the text, gives a better overview.

Not done since it's only 3 nominations. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

This section needs the most work.

move the sequel to an own section and give a brief overview over plot etc.

Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned earlier, move the entire Katzenberg stuff to release/reception and elaborate on it.

Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk)

That it was considered a box office disappointment contrasts with the "relative success" in the reception section. Move that information there and clarify that it underperformed in comparison to other Disney blockbusters.

Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk)

Start the section with something like "Over the years, the film established a cult following" or whatever, as paragraph 3 is the new paragraph 1.

Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would merge paragraphs 4, 5, and maybe 7, as they all concern themselves with Disney embracing the movie.

Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Ducktales paragraph should be shortened, as it concerns itself with small easter eggs for most of the part.

Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is it for writing and broad coverage. Some fixing is needed, but nothing that isn't doable.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

Agree All sources are reliable and check out, I would suggest archiving some of them, especially from smaller outlets and sites that are known to delete content after a few years.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4. Is it neutral?

Agree--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it stable?

Agree unless Disney plans a live action reboot... ;) --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

6. Is it illustrated?

Agree Movie poster etc. are all fair use, so yes. You could add a picture of the cast/director whatever, but I don't think any of this is needed.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

All in all, the article has the potential to be a GA but needs some additional work/clean up.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second tier of remarks

I see you did most of the improvements already. However, I think you may have inadvertedly moved some information into the wrong sections:

you moved everything about Katzenberg into "Home media". I would rather dissolve that paragraph altogether, as some information here relates to release, other to reception and legacy. Move the information on sales and Pocahontas to "Box office" The information on Katzenberg could be the first sentence of "Theatrical release" or the last of "production". Everything relating to fandom/cult following I would rather include into "legacy".
In sequel, you mention Roxanne appearing in House of Mouse. Move that information to legacy, and if you have information on other major charaters reappearing elsewhere (except in the sequel of course), also include that in legacy.
In the sequel paragraph, I would also add that Max and his mates take part in the X Games, as it is a major aspect of the movie.

Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, the article has already improved. Ping me when you've finished everything relating to the first and second tier of remarks. I you don't find information on Bobby, Roxanne, or Powerline's design, that's not too big of a deal.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DasallmächtigeJ: After a very long search on Google and a short one on the Open Library, I couldn't find any information on the characters that hadn't already been mentioned in the article. Anyway, here's a ping since most of your suggestions have been addressed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought that might happen, after all, the movie isn’t Frozen or The Lion King where every small aspect is discussed some place. I will take another thorough look tomorrow. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passed, good work on the article, maybe you also want to do the second one with all the information you've found so far you might be able to turn it into another GA.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.