Talk:Mulan (Disney character)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 19:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Is First Ancestor Fa called that, in the movie? If so, please cite the film itself (as there's really nothing I can find that really verifies that. What about Fa Li? I'm centering out these two, solely because they don't appear in the rest of the article.

Done. Fair enough, the film itself technically does not refer to the character by any specific name. However, I believe that I have successfully managed to locate several reliable online sources in which the character is simply referred to as "First Ancestor", albeit "Fa", such as official cast and character listings. Similar references can be cited in the case of Fa Li, although I do very much recall one of the film's minor characters referring to her as such during the "Honor to Us All" musical sequence.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! -- Zanimum (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

When you say "widely regarded", are you meaning widely acclaimed, acknowledged, celebrated, etc? In my first read through, I interpreted this to mean her placement as the first East Asian princess was contentious, and I was thinking... who else is East Asian? (and of course there isn't anyone)

Done. "Widely regarded" simply removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid references in the lead. I've tested a few of the points, and they all appear in the article. If someone questions criticism of Mulan being Westernized, then they can scroll down. I'd also encourage paraphrasing Tony Bancroft's quote, best to avoid quotes in the lead.

Done. References removed and quotations limited. Bancroft's quote paraphrased. Added additional information about Mulan's development to lead in order to further accurately summarize the article.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conception

I believe Wikipedia's style guide suggests punctuation should be within the quotation marks, even if it isn't drawn from the source. (Last sentence of the first paragraph.)

Done. Really? Most articles appear to follow the exact opposite format to me. Oh well, scoured the entire article and corrected as many quotes as possible.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I'm pretty sure it's within. Whatever you're comfortable with, I guess. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voice

Disney Voice Actors: A Biographical Dictionary? Nice find, I hadn't heard of that.

Thank you. I myself was pleasantly surprised by its existence.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Characterization and design

The film's waters? Writers?

Done. Careless typo.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"have a total of daughters"?

Done. Also a typo. "Seven daughters."--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The quote with the [sic] in it... it's sourced to a blog that likely doesn't have an editing process. Since it wouldn't have been Mark Henn himself making the mistake, please just fix the error. That said the blog was written by a Grayson Ponti, and his Twitter feed says he's in high school, an aspiring animator. He didn't get this quote himself, I'm guessing. I Googled, and can't find the source. Is there any other source where Henn says similar?

Done. Corrected the mistake. The website Animated Views, which is also used frequently throughout the sections, features a very similar quote from Mark Henn. Added the reference in addition to the current one.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passing Appearances.

Great. Thanks!--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merchandise

Would it not be correct to say she's the only East Asian member?

Done. Sure. I don't see why not. I especially agree with this because, as stated, she is technically not a "princess."--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please make the Mulan Jr. sentence clearer. It sounds like a Broadway show about her having a kid, not a production written for schools to put on.

Done. Simply removed the statement as Mulan, Jr. is not actually an official Broadway production as, say, Beauty and the Beast or The Lion King. It is performed by high schools. Good for the actual film article, but not necessarily here.--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What season's premiere does Mulan appear in?

Done. The premiere refers to Once Upon a Time.

Right, I knew the series was OUaT, but which season's premiere? I've added.

Critical response

"Much less positively" seems awkward. What about "Critics were not unanimous in their praise. The Phoenix..."

Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an author for the Teen Ink article? If you give a quote that much, well, ink, hopefully the author isn't anonymous. Also, is this a blog, magazine? Readers shouldn't have to click through to find out.

Teen Ink is actually an official monthly magazine. However, authors tend to go by a series of usernames, such as Sobriquet for the one featured in the article. Upon researching, I discovered that the author's real first name is Michelle. I was not sure if I should include this without knowledge of her last name, so I decided to just leave it as a quote by Teen Ink. Thoughts?--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a print magazine with usernames, those would equal "proper" pseudonyms, so you could include it then in the credit. Sobriquet or none, whichever. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you weren't able to find any opposing views, in this case, reviews supporting Mulan and Shang's relationship?

I located some reviews that acknowledged the subtlety in which the relationship was treated at the end of the film, but none that actually stated whether or not this was a good thing. In essence, they were more neutral observations stating "facts" as opposed to actual reviews.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 51 should be credited in the text, given that you're starting a section off with their backhanded criticism of the rest of the studio's canon.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're suggesting here...I believe the reference you're referring to is no longer 51st due to a series of edits made to the article. Therefore, I am unable to correct it. Do young mind telling me some information about the reference? Title? Source?--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 52 probably also should have a source in the prose.

Similar can be said of this one. Sorry.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't Peter Travers' commentary work as an opposing view against the main thread of the relationship section?

Well, I had decided to leave Travers' comment exclusively for the "Cultural significance" section in an attempt to avoid repeating reviews throughout the "Reception" section. Also, I personally don't think that the comment is in support of their relationship...it actually quite blatantly states "She doesn't swoon over Captain Shang ... Mulan, let the record show, does not put out." It actually reads as though Travers is saying there is no relationship (the 'subtlety' thing). It is more of an acknowledgment of Mulan's lack of dependency on men, but not really in support of their relationship. Thoughts?--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Mulan's hair isn't discussed in "Characterization and design", the inclusion of the EW list seems irrelevant. If a website said she had the third best hands, so what, unless the filmmakers have discussed her hand in an interview?

The reference is simply an accolade. Doesn't add nor does it take away much from the article. Easily removable.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, the Georgia Institute of Technology's Board of Governors ranked Mulan as Disney's fourteenth greatest character? I can only hope it was a student union poll, or a newspaper column, or a professor, or something. Not the school administration itself.

Doesn't say. It is definitely affiliated in some way with the facility's official website.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Public polls are of only nominal interest; if you rehold that poll today, or in two weeks, you likely get completely different results. I'll let it slide, though.

Thanks. I will continue to monitor the poll in order to ensure its accuracy.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

Ref 11: Eric D. Snider is a freelance writer... can you email him, see if this particular review appeared in any other outlet?

Simply removed. "True to yourself" comment already stated by director Tony Bancroft himself, and sourced.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 19: The United Press International article is news... please switch to the cite news template, and only fill in their name to the agency field, leave the newspaper name and publisher fields blank.

Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 24: Any idea where About.com got the quote from? Does it show up anywhere else?

The quote is essentially re-iterated by director Bancroft in an interview with The Christian Post, which is cited by one of the following statements in the article. Bancroft comments in the Christian Post interview, "someone who would be strong on her own, without a prince saving her."--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 36: When all the world's PS2 consols are dead, is there any published reference to Mulan's role in Kingdom Hearts II?

Done. LOL problem solved.--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 41: Switch template to cite news... while they don't make it clear, it's the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

Where in the article is her rank within the Chinese army discussed? How do we know that she's a private or a lieutenant?

Done. Removed. I had nothing to do with this ignorant categorization.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries.

A few more refs that I need to look into, to make sure they can be considered reliable sources.

Finally, I saved the article to my desktop, and it revealed a hidden category for "Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters". I have no idea in the world which parameter is depreciated, so I have no idea how they expect you to fix it. I'd suggest just ignoring this issue altogether, frankly someone should have written a bot to fix this "parameter" anyway. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I believe I made all suggested changes and edits. Please let me know if I missed anything. Very detailed, in-depth review. Grueling to apply to the article, but well worth it. I'm impressed. Currently awaiting further comments and reviews.--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it! Good stuff. Some of the blogs (Adventures of a Couponista, for example) might cause issues if you proceed to FA status, but if Disney endorsed the blog with an interview, it's good enough source for me. Congrats! -- Zanimum (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!--Changedforbetter (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]