Talk:Pocahontas (1995 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Changedforbetter (talk · contribs) 02:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha I've never reviewed a film article before, so this should be fun. It's pretty hefty so I'll try to get the bulk of it done within 5-7 days.--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Production

Development

Think I'm gonna start with this section...

Beginning with the very first sentence here "Following the release of The Rescuers Down Under", there are several instances of film titles being mentioned without the "dates" they were released (The Rescuers Down Under, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, etc...); I think you should take a look through the article and add a year to the first time each film is mentioned in brackets – for example Beauty and the Beast (1991) and so forth. Here's a hint: if you simply left click on the wiki-lined film, it gives you a short synopsis of the film, usually beginning with the year it was released.--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"... director Mike Gabriel was eager to collaborate on a vastly different follow-up project with veteran Disney story artist and character designer Joe Grant." Try "director Mike Gabriel was eager to collaborate with veteran Disney animator Joe Grant on a follow-up project that was vastly different from the animated adventure film."--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"...Gabriel took a one-sheet color image of Tiger Lily from Peter Pan and wrote the title Walt Disney's Pocahontas on it, and on the back, he taped a one-sentence pitch of "an Indian princess who is torn between her father's wishes to destroy the English settlers and her wishes to help them — a girl caught between her father and her people, and her love for the enemy." I think this can be simplified quite a bit; try "... Gabriel wrote the title 'Walt Disney's Pocahontas" on an image of Tiger Lily from Peter Pan (19....), to the back of which he taped a brief pitch that read "an Indian princess..."--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"...At the time, Feature Animation president Peter Schneider had been developing an animated version of Romeo and Juliet for many years and Gabriel's timely pitch had many of the same elements. "We were particularly interested in exploring the theme of 'If we don't learn to live with one another, we will destroy ourselves,'" recalled Schneider. Try "Coincidentally, Feature Animation president Peter Schneider had been developing an animated version of William Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet, and observed several similarities between his idea and Gabriel's Pocahontas pitch; Schneider recalled, "We were..."--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Changedforbetter: What other changes should I make? MagicatthemovieS (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Gabriel's pitch was quickly accepted, becoming the quickest story turnaround in studio history" are you able to clarify whether Pocahontas was the quickest turnaround in Disney studio history, or film studio history in general? It's currently unclear.--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Head of Story Tom Sito went on the record stating he wanted to include more and broader jokes..." simplify; "...Sito once stated than he had originally wanted to include "broader" jokes..."--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This currently meets Wikipedia:Quickfail #3 as the Accolades section is completely unreferenced. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can fix that within the next few days; just for the record Changed, Quickfail means you can fail it if you choose, not that you must do so. P.S.

I originally wrote that. I was referring to Disney's studio history. Christianster94 (talk) 2:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The Beauty and the Beast article is a GA and it lacks sources for its accolades section. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of quick failing this article; I don't think it would be necessary at all. Magic is extremely committed and has done some great work – I've just been having some technical issues, but I'm back.--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOFISHING. Also, that was three years ago. Changed doesn't have to close it if he wants to stick with it, but the Accolades section needs citations. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing the problem. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is fixed. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, well done!--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @MagicatthemovieS:, I bare some sobering news; when you nominated this article for GA I automatically assumed that you were the article's main contributor. However, despite your quick and impressive edits over the past few weeks, it has recently been brought to my attention that you actually did very little significant work on this article prior to nominating it, which is almost like taking credit for someone else's work which I simply can not stand far no matter how much I appreciate your passion and recent efforts (similar to what you had tried to do with my Gaston and Ursula articles a few months ago). For that reason, I regret to inform you that I must fail this article for the time being until its rightful editor feels that it is time to nominate Pocahontas for GA.--Changedforbetter (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Changedforbetter: Who is the rightful editor? I would be happy to contact her/him to see if they would be OK with the article being nominated. Also, I most certainly wasn't trying to take credit for anyone else's work! I was just trying to better this article. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell from the history, but up until a few days ago it wasn't you. Also, while again I admire your intentions, your process is reversed; the article should be improved before it is nominated. The prose needs a lot of work (I simply don't have the time to point all of them out); perhaps you would consider getting this article peer reviewed for copy-edting and such before nominating – I'm sure another reviewer would be happy to give it another chance.--Changedforbetter (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Changedforbetter: Do you know of an editor interested in Disney who might want to review Pocahontas for GA status now that I have had it peer-reviewed and altered its article accordingly? (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MagicatthemovieS: I'm the rightful editor. I was responsible for a major overhaul for the article back in May 2015. I'll be more than happy to help Pocahontas become a Good Article. Christianster94 (talk) 2:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Christianster94: Awesome! I'll re-nominate it right away! talk) 2:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Christianster94: Are you planning on editing the article or reviewing it for GA status? Either is appreciated. 3:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@MagicatthemovieS: I was planning on doing minor structural and grammatical revisions, but the article looks good for now. Christianster94 (talk) 6:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@MagicatthemovieS: @Christianster94: @Changedforbetter: Sorry to pick bones here, but there are a few issues with this being reopened. (1) Christianster94 cannot review this as he has been heavily involved in editing. (2) This has been reopened while the peer review is still open. We don't know if any other editor will participate in the PR, but it has not been closed. (3) The first GAC has been reopened, rather than a Talk:Pocahontas (1995 film)/GA2 being created, and Changedforbetter is still identified as the reviewer. The review has also been pushed up in the list of film nominees, ahead of nominations that have been there for longer. This article was not nominated in September. [1] Closing this; GA2 should be opened if this is to be reviewed. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]