Talk:Aurora (Sleeping Beauty)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 22:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start to review this tonight, and try and post tomorrow. I'm the one who reviewed Belle (2012), reviewed Rapunzel (2013), and reviewed Mulan (2014). (I'm amazed these were so long ago.) -- Zanimum (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure to be collaborating with you again, and I look forward to your comments :-)--Changedforbetter (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, I've been working on cleaning up references, and replacing some references with less derivative sources. For now, here are some comments for the "Miscellaneous" section:

Miscellaneous

All of these seem to be video games. As such, the name seems a little errant. I'd suggest either renaming the section, or adding info about other uses of the character.
You talk about theme parks in other articles, what about Sleeping Beauty Castle? (The character is only referenced in Le Château de la Belle au Bois Dormant, whereas she's in the dioramas at California and Paris.)
What about Whisker Haven and the Palace Pets app and the character Dreamy?
Kilala Princess shouldn't be talked about at any length, but it might deserve a sentence.
Is there any way to add references for the video games?

More later. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a 1997 interview with The Globe and Mail, Costa is listed as being paid $250 a week, not $100 a day. I can't find any reliable sources backing up the $100 claim. Can you find where TheRichest would have sourced this to? (I've added the same G&M article for another citation.) -- Zanimum (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ZanimumConcerns addressed. Edited and sourced video games paragraph in "Miscellaneous", as well as expanded section to include some of Aurora's popular sightings at the Disney Parks.--Changedforbetter (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Simply replaced TheRichest reference with the more reliable one you provided :-)--Changedforbetter (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review abandoned

As has unfortunately been the case with several recent reviews by Zanimum, this review has been left untouched for too long—basically abandoned—even though Zanimum was warned on his or her talk page at the outset that this practice was not acceptable and would not be allowed to continue. Changedforbetter has requested that another reviewer be found, so the nomination has been returned to the GAN pool to find a different reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]