Talk:Giselle (Enchanted)/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Changedforbetter (talk · contribs) 19:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Adri-at-BYU (talk · contribs) 17:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'll begin working on this review later today, please let me know if any notes or questions come up!! Adri-at-BYU (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adri-at-BYU Thanks for your comments! All of your points below have been addressed for now. Will await further comments/instruction. Changedforbetter (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Changedforbetter: Thank you for your work again! I added a few responses and there's just one more thing left under 3a. Adri-at-BYU (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adri-at-BYUThank you, 3a has been addressed. Changedforbetter (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Changedforbetter: All good! I'll go pass it off now :)

@Adri-at-BYU Thanks so much! :)--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review

1. Well-written

a. Y(addressed)Clear and concise prose

in the "role" section for Disenchanted, try to edit so it doesn't have "idyllic" twice in one sentence

Revised.--Changedforbetter (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

clarify that it's Robert's bachelor party

Oppose: unfortunately the source doesn't specify whose bachelor party Giselle was hired to perform at. Although it completely makes sense for it to have been Robert's bachelor party due to the fact that he is the male lead/romantic interest, this would almost entirely be inference, since this plot point is from an old version of the script that never materialized; Robert could very easily have been just a guest attending someone else's party, which he canceled due to their treatment of Giselle. The only details we no for certain in this context are that Robert canceled the party in order to save Giselle.--Changedforbetter (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I saw it in this one https://web.archive.org/web/20230609192446/https://animatedviews.com/2008/enchanted-interviews-chapter-two-doug-short/ but now I see it's not clear whether the bachelor party was Robert's or his friend's. Thanks for checking that and sorry for the misunderstanding! Adri-at-BYU (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

consider removing quotes from "Prince Charming" character in the Creation section

Revised.--Changedforbetter (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

b. Y MoS compliance

2. Verifiable with no original research

a. Y(addressed) List of references

Citation 26 is linked to a different source than it says. I think this is what it's supposed to link to https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/enchanted-at-10-revisiting-the-film-with-director-kevin-lima/

Apologies, fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

b. Y Sources cited inline

c. Y No original research

d. Y No copyright violations or plagiarism

3. Broad in its coverage

a. Y(addressed) Addresses main aspects of the topic

Consider: Balance Enchanted and Disenchanted more in the Role section. Enchanted is obviously more notable but either add a little more detail to Disenchanted or remove some from Enchanted in this section. (found some quick things that talk about her character in the sequel https://variety.com/2022/film/reviews/disenchanted-review-amy-adams-maya-rudolph-patrick-dempsey-1235436368/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2022/11/18/disenchanted-review-be-careful-what-you-wish-for-in-a-sequel/?sh=7bfff1c96b88

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/nov/18/disenchanted-review-amy-adams-returns-sequel

Expanded.--Changedforbetter (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! I can tick this one off if you just clarify which sources the new material came from in the paragraph. Adri-at-BYU (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used the Guardian and Variety sources.--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consider changing Role section to "Appearances" like in Cinderella (Disney character) and Moana (character)

I'd like to refrain from doing an "Appearances" section, because unlike most Disney characters, Giselle has very few appearances outside of her two feature-length films; I've mentioned what few appearances in other media there are in the "Legacy" section. I've also always felt it made more sense to summarize the character's role in their main media before delving into all the development details about how such media was created, similar to how film articles summarize the plot before detailing production. If the character had more appearances outside of the two Enchanted films, I would create an "Appearances in other media" section.--Changedforbetter (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer consistency but I don't see a rule about how to title sections on character pages so I'm fine with leaving it. Adri-at-BYU (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

b. Y Focused on topic without unnecessary detail. The article is very detailed, but there are also many sources giving this information, so it seems fitting.

4. Neutral

Y Gives due weight to viewpoints presented about the character.

Thank you.--Changedforbetter (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5. Stable

Y Not under any edit wars or dispute (not counting title change discussion because it won't affect the content of the article)

Thank you.--Changedforbetter (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. Illustrated by media

a. Y Pictures have relevant captions and copyright info

b. Y (addressed) The picture of Reese Witherspoon is not majorly relevant, maybe use another picture of Adams? There are a lot on Wikimedia Commons

I agree, but I didn't want to add another image of Amy Adams because she is already shown in the Infobox for the character image, since it is a live-action character. I figured if another image were to be included in the article, it would be another actor who was considered for the role of Giselle before Adams was cast.--Changedforbetter (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found another page with actors considered for the role so I'm fine leaving this. Adri-at-BYU (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Changedforbetter: I'm putting this on hold until you get a minute to look over the review, but it looks really good! Please let me know if you have any questions about my comments!