Talk:The Little Mermaid (1989 film)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk · contribs) 01:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Overview
[edit]Prose: See below Resolved
Sourcing: See below Resolved
Coverage: See below Resolved
Neutrality: See below Resolved
Stability: No issues
GA Result: On Hold for seven days Passed
Details
[edit]- Plot
"Ariel, a sixteen-year-old mermaid princess, is dissatisfied with life under the sea and curious about the human world" would read better as something like "A sixteen-year-old mermaid princess named Ariel is unhappy with underwater life and curious about human life on land"- "travel to the ocean surface to watch a celebration for the birthday of Prince Eric on a ship, with whom Ariel falls in love"..... how about just "travel to the ocean surface to watch Prince Eric celebrate his birthday" and "Ariel falls in love with Eric"?
- "the unconscious Eric" → "an unconscious Eric"
- "Despite her claims that she's doing this"..... avoid contractions unless part of a quote or title
- "out of the kindness of her heart"..... a bit lengthy, let's go with simply "out of kindness"
"disguises herself as a beautiful young woman"..... the "beautiful" bit seems POVNot sure everyone reading this will automatically known what a "polyp" in "Triton transforms into a polyp" is supposed to mean, try a different wordNever mind on this one"Eric kills Ursula by running her through the abdomen with the ship's splintered bowsprit" is somewhat wordy, try "Eric stabs and kills Ursula with the ship's splintered bowsprit".
- Cast
Is there any particular reason detail is given on Ariel and no other characters? Either expand on the other characters or remove the extended detail for her.Only the voices for Ariel and "additional voices" are supported citations. The rest need to be cited.
- Production
-
- Story development
"but was put on hold due to various circumstances" → "but was delayed due to various circumstances"- Place a comma between "1985" and Ron Clements
- "Walt Disney Studios chairman" isn't needed as it has already been established that Katzenberg was CEO
- "approved of" would be a term for "greenlit"
Per WP:OVERITE, refs doesn't need to be used twice in a row in the third paragraph, take out the instance after "sea witch" where ref#11 is used, and ref#12 should just be used at the end of the paragraph
- Animation
More WP:OVERCITE- ref#13 should only be used at the end of "paint support to Mermaid" in first paragraph, ref#9 shouldn't be used after the bit on Alyssa Milano, ref#17 should just be used after the "replaced by Carroll" bit, ref#9 should just be used once at the end of the fourth paragraph, and only once at the end of the fifth paragraph
- Music
Even more WP:OVERCITE- ref#16 should just be used at the end of the paragraphI'd add another paragraph's worth of information to this subsection- one paragraph alone seems imbalanced with the other subsections of "Production".Actually, on second thought the link to its soundtrack will do.
- Release
-
- Home media
"home video releases in May 1990, eight months after the release of the film"..... if this film was released November 1989, than this should say six months
- Reception
-
- Box office
Remove ref#2 after the "additional gross" bit per WP:OVERCITE
- Critical reception
IGN should not be italicized
- Controversy
I'd either expand these two short paragraphs or merge them into one
- References
IMDb is not reliableturns out this ref was simply mistitled and actually was from Box Office Mojo"YouTube.com" should be YouTube- Entertainment Weekly should be linked in the first instance it is used in a ref, but not in subsequent Entertainment Weekly refs.
- "festival-cannes.com." should read "Festival-Cannes", and shouldn't be italicized if an online only source
- The New York Times should be italicized and linked in the first instance it is used in a ref, but not linked in subsequent refs to The New York Times
- Something doesn't look quite right in ref#34 (stray text)
- "Movies.yahoo.com." should read Yahoo! Movies
- Rotten Tomatoes shouldn't be italicized as it is online only
- Chicago Sun-Times should be linked and italicized
- "tvguide.com" should read TV Guide and be italicized
- Variety should be linked and italicized
"Nytimes.com" should read The New York Times
- Ok, i fixed it all. Koala15 (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I struck all that has been fixed, Koala15, but the rest still need addressing. Don't worry- you've still got time! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, i think that should cover it, and the Rotten Tomatoes source looks like it has italics but it doesn't. Koala15 (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I struck all that has been fixed, Koala15, but the rest still need addressing. Don't worry- you've still got time! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)