Talk:Rapunzel (Tangled)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 19:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Working on a review.[reply]

For now, I'm questioning the use of Disney Princesses line artwork for the infobox. This clicked in when I was reading about there being only 100 strands of hair: I can't see how that looks, anywhere in the article. Same goes for asymmetry, not represented in the illustration. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I agree with you about the Disney Princess publicity image of Rapunzel being used in the infobox. But note that every other Disney Princess article on Wikipedia does uses a similar image, not a screenshot from the film. I'm also aware that most other images would have copyright restrictions. When Glen Keane mentions "asymmetry", he does not mean the Wikipedia definition of it. He simply means that Rapunzel is not 100% perfect. It is clearly sourced by this link: http://www.philonfilm.net/2011/01/interview-glen-keane.html. You can find the direct quote around the middle of the fourth paragraph. And the number 100 is clearly referenced by this link: http://www.npr.org/2012/04/20/151047258/untangling-the-hairy-physics-of-rapunzel. You can find it in the middle of paragraph six.--Changedforbetter (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Also, the image, which is a rather outdated concept one possibly from 2007, is not in reference to the use of asymmetry; it, like the tagline reads, simply demonstrates the type of hair Keane wanted.[reply]

FYI, I am coming back to this, just keep on forgetting. It's on a different computer, my mostly-complete review. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, it is quite alright. Do take your time :) I'm not gonna lie, however...this is definitely the longest I've ever had to wait for a review...Changedforbetter (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a case of getting this computer connected to the internet... I really need to get the web at home. So, I've started making fairly straight forward edits that I was suggesting in the review. You can take a look at the edit summaries, to see what's what.

Tangled Ever After

“is also aired in Spring 2012” needs fixing. That said, this airing is relevant in the short's article, but why is it relevant to Rapunzel as a character?

Done, both release and air date removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading/reviewing this article out of order, so Eugene's name threw me. Given that Flynn doesn't have a physical transformation, like the Beast/Prince Adam, I didn't even remember that Flynn wasn't his real name.

Solved: provided brief background information explaining that at the end of the first film Flynn decides to go by his real name Eugene. Also begin the summary by saying Eugene proposes to her in the first film.--Changedforbetter (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything more that can be said of her role in the short, other than marrying? Does it demonstrate any personality traits mentioned in 1.3.1?

I expanded the summary as a whole. Not much changes about Rapunzel except her hair colour, which I mentioned.--Changedforbetter (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Princess and merchandise

Avoid in article external links.

Removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and post more the of the review tomorrow, I got distracted tonight. I am amazed how many bullets I was able to erase entirely, as you fixed them by your own, between me saying I'd review and me actually posting. Good stuff. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Design and characteristics

Were these nine designs of Rapunzel nine CG models? Nine model sheets?
It's not specifically stated. This is the direct quotation from the source: "They came up with nine versions of Rapunzel (five of which were fully animated) before they settled on the final one." By "five of which were fully animated," I assume they mean computer-animated, leaving three four that were either model sheets, storyboards or such. But since that's only an assumption, I felt it better to simply state how many different designs were created. Is that alright?--Changedforbetter (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

Coronated is a fully valid word, used properly in this sentence. But it is also a weird word. Perhaps “Disney introduces characters to its Disney Princess lineup through “coronations”, of which Rapunzel's was on October 2, 2011. She was the first computer animated princess to be added to the group.” or something. Pretty much anything that avoids the past tense of coronation. Also, is there any reference to how most merchandise with her depicts her as a traditional animation-type cartoon design, as opposed to CG.

Done. Rephrased sentence to better incorporate the word "coronation". Also found a reference for her traditionally animated appearance in Disney merchandise.--Changedforbetter (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For Belle, you've used "Other appearances" as the section name. For Ariel, "In other media". Would you consider establishing a standard for Disney Princess (and perhaps Disney characters in general) articles?

Well, I feel "Miscellaneous" serves a better purpose because it covers a wider variety of topics, such as both merchandise AND Disney theme parks than "Other appearances" and "In other media". I will eventually replace the current subheadings in Ariel and Belle with Miscellaneous.--Changedforbetter (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it. Even more changes that I had marked down were fixed before I could formally suggest them. You almost caught them all. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. I'm really glad you're impressed. Thanks for reviewing.--Changedforbetter (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pass! Congrats. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thank you so much!!! --Changedforbetter (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]