Talk:Monsters, Inc./GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 01:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I've been slower to get to this than planned; I've had some health issues slowing me down. Haven't forgotten you, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

• First, I'd suggest giving the article a top-to-bottom proofread. I notice you haven't worked on the article yet, and there appear to be some minor but obvious errors here still like this one.[1]
• Very short sections and subsections should be combined per WP:LAYOUT-- "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading".
• Some sections and statements are in clear need of citation, such as "The dark ride was developed to boost the theme park's lagging attendance, and was quite successful in doing so for a short time" and "The attraction has been praised for its originality."
• On a much smaller note, "Billy Crystal, having regretted turning down the part of Buzz Lightyear years prior, accepted that of Mike Wazowski, Sulley's one-eyed best friend and scare assistant" hardly seems to need four citations.
• The American Film Institute list inclusions should be turned into prose, as there's very little content there (per WP:EMBED).

This should give you a start. Thanks for being willing to take this one on. Once you've had a chance to work on the article some, I'll be glad to take a more detailed pass myself. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think i fixed most of the issues you suggested. Koala15 (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I'll take a fuller pass tonight or tomorrow and let you know if I see any remaining issues. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem strictly true to say it "received highly positive reviews from critics and audiences" -- do we have evidence that audiences praised the film in this way? It might be better to put this more concretely by saying that it was praised by critics and was a box office success.
• "parallel city " is a slightly confusing way to describe Monstropolis. Is this how it's described in the movie? It might be easier to just say "the city of Monstropolis".
• I've done some tightening in the Voice Cast section. Are you sure you've proofread this? Sentences like "And has to impress Alan, Goe, and Daved" seem to be outright vandalism, though maybe I'm not understanding or this is just a part of the movie I'm forgetting. It'll be a lot easier if you read this article before I do. =)

More in a bit, have to go to Little Miss Khazar's day care... -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think i fixed most of those issues. I did proof read the article but i might have missed some things. Koala15 (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your quick responses! So that Alan, Goe, and Daved bit was just vandalism, then? Just want to make sure I didn't accidentally delete real information. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think this is getting close to ready. A few remaining issues:

• "Although the film suffered negative publicity in the form of two lawsuits against the filmmakers, filed by Lori Madrid and Stanley Mouse respectively, that were ultimately dismissed, Monsters, Inc. was praised by critics and proved to be a major box office success from its release on November 2, 2001, generating over $562 million worldwide.[1]" --two questions about this sentence. First, the later text doesn't seem to support the claim that the film received negative publicity from the two lawsuits. Second, the second lawsuit seems to have been filed a year after the film's release--so why would bad publicity from it have been expected to affect the box office figures? -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Claimed" should generally be rewritten as "said" or "stated" per WP:WTA, a GA criterion.
• "Sully" is misspelled in several places. ("Sulley" is the correct spelling, right?)
• The three sections (main and two subsections) of "Release" could simply be combined into one section; there's no reason to have a lot of 1-2 sentence sections per WP:LAYOUT.
• "In US dollars, it is the seventh-biggest fourth weekend ever for a film" -- it confuses me why "in US dollars" is specified here--are there films that have made more money in other currencies? Also, instead of saying it is the "nth-est ever", you might add "as of", since a stat like this could go out of date at any time.
• The summary of the Lori Madrid trial is somewhat confusing--did she write a story or a poem? The section appears to use the words interchangably. Second, it seems like the article goes into unnecessary detail here (this is an issue under criterion 3b) and in the Mouse lawsuit. The coverage of the lawsuits takes up more of the article than the animation section, the critical response and analysis, etc. Considering that neither lawsuit had consequences of any kind, I'd suggest that both these descriptions be trimmed to about half their current size; the amount of article space they're being given right now suggests that they are the most important aspect of the film, which doesn't seem right.
• "Over their objections, however, the judge ordered a hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction to take place on November 1, 2001" -- why did Madrid and her lawyer object to having this hearing? Isn't it exactly what they were asking for?
• The image for "Excuse My Dust" needs a better caption. Could you write a better description of what we're looking at?
• The one-sentence paragraph in the "Stanley Mouse" section should be merged with the previous paragraph.
• The lead says that the Stanley Mouse lawsuit was dismissed, but this doesn't appear to be discussed in the body. This needs to be fixed so these match up--what is the current status of the Mouse lawsuit?

Thanks again for your work to improve this one, and let me know your thoughts on the above. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the "Excuse My Dust" caption, but i really don't know much about these two lawsuits cause the Lori Madrid lawsuit section is sourced from a book so i can't really find any info on it. I also fixed the US dollars sentence. Though i am not really sure how to go about trimming the lawsuit section. Koala15 (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have access to the book either, but I'm happy to summarize what's there in briefer form if you don't object. Tell you what, I'll give it a try and you can revert me if you disagree--sound ok? I'm watching a ball game at the moment but will work on it off and on over the next hour. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've trimmed it down. But it's up to you to do the research for where the Stanley Mouse lawsuit is at--if the lead is wrong, or the body is wrong here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I found a source for the Stanley Mouse lawsuit, i'm not sure if its reliable but it says here "The case was ultimately settled under undisclosed terms.". Koala15 (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that'll do; seems like a reputable enough institution. Also, Mouse's lawyer's press release appears to confirm this. [2]. I think adding the Mises source would cover this well enough. Thanks for finding it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything else that sticks out to you and needs to be fixed? Koala15 (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the points above cover it for now. I'll take a last glance once these changes are made, and do a few final checks (spotchecks for copyright, etc.). -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment - According to Wikipedia:MOSALBUM#Album_ratings_template, it is frowned upon to have a table of reviews without accompanying prose, as you do in the music section. Also, US and 2000s portals are not needed. BollyJeff | talk 17:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

So do you think we should remove the album ratings template? Koala15 (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't necessarily have to remove it. I thought there was an agreed upon policy against them, but I cannot find that now. At least you should add text and quotes explaining some of the reviews, and the overall acceptance of the album, instead of just having number of stars. BollyJeff | talk 20:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that that would be helpful, though it's probably not strictly needed for the GA criteria (only a few MOS pages are). It's up to you, Koala. The points remaining above (the conclusion of the S Mouse lawsuit, "claimed", the Sully misspellings, etc.) definitely do fall under the GA criteria, though, so don't forget about those. And thanks, BollyJeff, for being another pair of eyes on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok i added the conclusion to the Stanley mouse lawsuit. I changed claimed to stated in the lawsuit section, and i only found one Sulley typo if you noticed anymore i would be happy to fix them. Koala15 (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I must have deleted the others while shortening the section; I apologize for not having just fixed the last one myself. (We're sure that "Sulley" is the correct spelling, right?) "Claimed" is still in the article 4-5 times, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah i'm sure Sulley is the correct spelling. I just re read the whole article and i only found one claimed, so tell me if you saw any other ones. Koala15 (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You can just use your browser's find function. In most browsers, this is CTRL+F. But you're right, I had two false positives by that count. The remaining one is here: "One of the ideas that came out of the brainstorming session was a film about monsters. "When we were making Toy Story", Docter claimed, "everybody came up to me and said 'Hey I totally believed that my toys came to life when I left the room.'" -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok i fixed it. Koala15 (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA