Talk:Saving Bikini Bottom: The Sandy Cheeks Movie

Saving Bikini Bottom: The Sandy Cheeks Movie has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 23, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Television: Nickelodeon Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Nickelodeon task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Animation: Films / SpongeBob SquarePants Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Animated films work group.
	This article is supported by the SpongeBob SquarePants work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: American / Animated

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Animated films task force.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.

Budget

What was the budget 78.16.170.107 (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idk but with the quality of this movie, I'll take my bouts and say like around $15? lol. 98.114.59.56 (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Saving Bikini Bottom: The Sandy Cheeks Movie/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Zingo156 (talk · contribs) 15:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: ChopinChemist (talk · contribs) 20:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article. Please respond if you're ready for feedback. ChopinTheChemist ^Chat? 20:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready Zingo156 (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~1. The biggest feedback I have for this article as of this moment is at the final paragraph of the lead:~~

The film debuted with 12.8 million views during its premiere weekend, making it Netflix's most-watched title of the week, and received mixed reviews from critics.

More details will be needed for what mixed reviews the movie had received (plot, voice acting, story, animation, etc). In addition, the lead should include what the movie is praised for (to balance viewpoints). More detail for who "Moniker" is would also be great. I looked it up and they are a group of composer so my suggested rephrase is :"The composer group Moniker composed the music for the movie"

2. Cast: More detail needed for Sue Nahmee, Boy, Girl and SeaPals Kid since the List of Spongebob Squarepants characters did not address them. Wikilink for Kyle to List of Spongebob Squarepants characters#Film characters (unless they're different people)

3. Release section. As of right now it is too short, and the movie leak could be discussed further (whether if the leak was taken down). If not possible, you can incorporate that section with Production and name it Production and release

4. For Production, the first sentence:

Executive producer Marc Ceccarelli pitched Saving Bikini Bottom: The Sandy Cheeks Movie during a session of pitching ideas for The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run (2020). The idea got passed on, but a few years later, when the team wanted to do a Sandy Cheeks-centric story, he brought it back up and it was put into development

A rewording would be better due to the ambiguity in "passed on" and in the source, Ceccarelli says: "and we ended up not using this one at that time. But then, a few years later, they decided they wanted to do something specifically with Sandy-centric stories, so we kind of had that story in our back pocket, and we pulled it out again and developed it further, and it became this.” I suggest this:

Executive producer Marc Ceccarelli pitched Saving Bikini Bottom: The Sandy Cheeks Movie during a session of pitching ideas for The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run (2020). The idea was not used until the team wanted to do a Sandy Cheeks-centric story, when he brought it back up and it was put into development.

5. For Music, omit "the same day as the film" from this sentence (it is already provided):

~~The film's soundtrack album was released by Lakeshore Records on August 2, 2024, the same day as the film.~~

That's all the feedback I have for now. Overall a solid article that only needs minor tweaking. @Zingo156.

p.s. Ping me once you've done the feedback so i can have a look. ChopinTheChemist ^Chat? 18:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, through the copyvio detection tool, I found that the article has a high likelihood of copyright violation (~68%), so I am requesting a second opinion to help me deal with this, as well as to check my review, since this is the first time I'm doing this and I may make mistakes or omissions. ChopinTheChemist ^Chat? 17:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this can be ignored, because the copyvio parts are just repeating the cast, the name, some common phrases, and parts of the reviews that are quoted in the article. Spinixster (trout me!) 03:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. Status changed to

On hold ChopinTheChemist ^Chat? 14:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be pedantic here, but I was wondering if the nominator could just paraphrase everything in the Critical reception? The Mama's Geeky and Daily Beast quotes, in particular, clock at exactly 40 words, which, while not long enough to be rendered a blockquote, are definitely borderline. And what makes Mama's Geeky reliable? While its reviewer/owner, Tessa Smith, is a Rotten Tomatoes approved critic, her website is not "Tomatometer-approved". That means when RT weight the critical consensus they won't factor in Mama's Geeky reviews unless it they've been written by Smith and two of her "Tomatometer-approved" colleagues, so it does raise the question as to whether we should cite this website. Granted, you could replace it with either Variety's review or Paste (magazine)'s. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zingo156 If you are willing, I'd be willing to take care of all the Reception stuff while you focus on other stuff in the article. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is that right, Dcdiehardfan? Because if I remember correctly, you volunteered to do the same thing at Talk:Rogue One/GA1, with minimal results. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zingo156 Sounds good. @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy As a matter of fact, yes I have haha. I'm not sure what you mean by the minimal results thing though. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do, I will really appreciate it. Zingo156 (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zingo156 Alright, I have went ahead and finished my edits. I'll keep this article on my watchlist and make sure Reception is taken care of while you can focus on other stuff. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am back to suggest replacing source [11] with something more reliable like https://www.animationmagazine.net/2024/08/exclusive-track-debuts-the-sandy-cheeks-movie-soundtrack-splashes-down-today-from-lakeshore/ or https://www.awn.com/news/netflix-reveals-2023-2024-feature-animation-slate

~~- About the leak part, we can add another detail: "The film remained on X for 5 hours before being removed by Paramount Global."~~

- Rewrite : "Another source of criticism was how he felt the live-action and animation elements lacked synergy, enjoying the character design of Sandy's family, but disliking the "jarring" designs of the Bikini Bottom crew, lack of emotive facial expressions, and flashbacks of Nahmee's character" to something like ... lacked synergy. While he enjoyed ... of Sandy's family, he disliked the "jarring" designs of the Bikini Bottom crew, lack of emotive facial expressions, and flashbacks of Nahmee's character" ChopinChemist ^Talk? 14:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChopinChemist

Done Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zingo156 After reading other GAs about movies I realized my evaluation is a bit too strict so I have removed all the suggestions. For the "Cast" section, I have one suggestion:

"Young Sue Nahmee" should not have "Young" capitalized.ChopinChemist ^Talk? 22:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am on it! Zingo156 (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to ask how important are the "Boy" and "Girl" character in the film, since I feel their inclusion in the cast my confuse the reader, as these two words are very generic and can be used to describe any person. In the spirit of notability, I am considering to have this removed, however in the spirit of broadness, as is required by the GA criteria, it should be included. Any person who have seen this can help me answer this question. Thanks. ChopinChemist ^Talk? 18:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:FILMCAST recommends "nam[ing] the most relevant actors and roles that are most appropriate for the film", which means everyone in the Cast must have played roles that contribute to the plot to merit their inclusion; not quite the case on those two. And I don't think the Cast section should be left unsourced either; to wit, Names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I just feel like "Boy" and "Girl" are so generic it might confuse readers, and I did not see them mentioned in the plot (maybe that's a common spongebob schtick). I found this source from Metacritic which can be included along with the sentence: "The following characters are listed based on the credits^[1] " to avoid having to cite a source multiple times. ChopinChemist ^Talk? 14:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with repeating refs on each item. In fact, doing so maintains text-source integrity. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Thanks for helping me out.

As for @Zingo156, you can place the citation I mentioned above after each cast member. As an example:

Carolyn Lawrence as Sandy Cheeks and others.^[1]

Use the <ref name = > tag when repeating the same citation.ChopinChemist ^Talk? 00:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Zingo156 (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·