Talk:Toy Story 3/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: King Of The Wise (talk · contribs) 06:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I will be reviewing this article. I'll try to do it fast (but not in a hurry).

I'll first provide some overview comments and then assess the article against the criteria. Furthermore I'll assess each section separately if there is need of it.Thank you.

(Note: This is my first review {actually my second but the first was with an article that was already a featured article}, so i am prone to mistakes. Please tell me if you think I am doing something wrong. I'll try my best to do this well. If because of some problem i am unresponsive for some time, feel free to take this to another reviewer. King Of The Wise (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Overall Comments

This article is about a very well known and highly critically acclaimed film and has been viewed 67269 times in the last 30 days (5000 times yesterday!!!), that is, it is a very highly viewed and popular article. It has been around since November 2004, a good five and a half years before the film was released, and was created by an IP. The article has been subject to moves in the past, some of them being vandalized moves, but the last such move was a while ago and the article has been fully protected against moves since against moves then. There have been many editors performing expansions in the past 10 years, most recent edit being on 9 Feb by an IP. As the protection log shows, the page has not been immune to vandalized moves and has endured slight instability, but as the latest protection was three years ago and the article is not even (in need of) semi protection now, it's not a concern. It is currently rated as C class but the rating was done about half an year ago and the article has improved, though how much so will be seen. There are no dead external links (courtesy the nominator- UBS, Good Work). Overall, the article's shape, structure and content look good when scrolled through but we'll see what the detailed examination brings up.

King Of The Wise (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all let me Pass or Fail the article in the criterion it is easily passing/failing in or in passing which it might need slight improvement but the present state is enough for the GA criteria. I'll provide comments for these later. (Please reply saying anything, your views on the review as it is going on, or anything else, just to let me know you are following the review). Thanx. King Of The Wise (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See Below
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There is only one section called "References" at the bottom. In accordance with MoS. The refs are listed properly and most of them are well detailed. But there are a number of references which will need to be expanded and which need more information. See Below
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The article is pretty well referenced giving references for all major and minor facts. No challenge-able claim or fact seems un-referenced to me. Still some sections can make do with more references. I'll discuss it below.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I did detailed examination of the article for this criteria and there does not seem to be any original research incorporated within the article. No personal opinions seem to be reflected in the article with most of the article being well referenced and only asserting facts, not any unsupported claims.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article is quite comprehensive and huge, covering covering almost everything related to the film, and is in its current state good enough to pass this criteria but it can have one more section. That on its video game. I know there is a separate main page on it and it is given in the article but still a short section before possible sequels can be made on it, not too detailed but stating the major points.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	This seems all good. All sections are related to the article and none of them seem to contain too many unnecessary details
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article seems to be good here, which is a big thing taking in consideraion its popularity and acclaim. No unnecessary or unreferenced statements stating either the goodness of the film or its marketing nor the bads of it. Yet I will suggest you try and find a negative review for the movie, mild as it might be and add it to the receptions section. That is not really needed and the given positive reviews are all referenced so there should be no problem. I don't think anything else is needed.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article's revision history does show a number of frequent edits but that is more because of the article's popularity. Also though there are some reverted edits some good edits (such as fixing dead links) make up a good amount of the recent edits. In addition, none of the frequent edits are quite major or significant. So the article is stable enough to pass this criteria.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes all the images have suitable captions and are relevant to the topic clearly showing what they were intended to. But i think article really needs some more images. Just three images in such a big article are not sufficient. Add more images to the the bigger sections. for more information and help See Below
	7. Overall assessment.	Passed it !!!!

Criteria 1b

There are obvious mistakes in the table used in the Accolades section. I am surprised you did not notice it already. The information is incomplete and many of the sections in the won or nominated column are empty. I suggest you help from the exactly similar but complete table from here - List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature_films)#Toy Story 3 . Infact, you should copy that table and use it here. Just copy its wiki markup. The only needed change would be the removal of (ref group=toy story 3) from all of the references.

 Done updated table as per your suggestion, thanks! UBStalk 09:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead needs to be shortened a little. The part from Jim Varney, who played Slinky Dog in in the second para to while Ranft's characters and various others were written out of the story. can be removed from the lead and instead should be added to the cast section. Also cut down the number of cast names from this para, removing some names from revived roles and some from new roles , keeping only the major ones. Also add a little more information. I think adding a few lines from the critical reception section will adequately turn the lead into a good summary. Just a few lines at the start of the awards para like - " The film received widespread critical acclaim earning 99% 'certified fresh' rating at rotten tomatoes (ref) and a score of 92 by Metacritic, signifying universal acclaim. That will be enough, I think. Also add another line (as a one line para) at the end of lead - " possible plans for a sequel have not yet been confirmed. "

 Done shortened lead by removing revived, new roles leaving main roles behind and also Improved as per your suggestions. UBStalk 04:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Layout

The Article seems to be good enough here. Some single line or short paragraphs are present in the reception section, especially at the last, and also below the soundtrack list in the music section. It would be a good thing to merge them if possible. Else, The article is ordered in the way it should be and all hings are arranged well.

 Done merged each of short paras within each other, looks nice now.

Words to Watch

Few such words used. Even where used they have been properly attributed. So no problem here.

Embedded List

The article mostly consists of prose and few lists are embedded so it follows he guidelines. Some lists have been used in the last few sections like accolades, soundtrack list, music awards, but i think they cannot be substituted and are better than prose, also in all featured and good film articles include them in this form only. Other than these only a list of cast is included. That is also allowed and I do not think it breaks any rules. I'd have preferred the list to be expanded with some information about the main characters but a link to the main article is already given above and also that is not covered in this criteria. So all good here too.

Writing about Fiction

In my opinion this criteria should not even be included in GA criteria. The essence of it is "No Original Research", "Verifiablity" and "Neutral point of view". If you have read wikipedia's policies you will identify these as the " the 3 core ploicies". All of these are already checked in the other criteria. The only other major things are fair use images, copyright issues, comprehensibility which too have also been already covered by the rest of the criteria. So if the article has passed all other criteria it automatically passes this one. As such, I don't think this should even be included. Anyays....

• The principal frame of reference is always the real world, in which both the work of fiction and its publication are embedded: write from a real-world perspective; Except for plot everything else is real world perspective. Yes

• Both primary and secondary information is necessary for a real-world perspective: maintain a balanced use of both primary and secondary sources; Yes (Already checked)

• Unpublished personal observation and interpretation of the article's subject and primary sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia: avoid original research; Yes (Already checked)

• All included information needs to be verifiable and derive from and be supported by reliable sources, and all sources (including the primary sources) need to be appropriately cited in the article: reference all information and cite your sources; Yes(Already checked)

• All relevant aspects must be given due weight in all elements of the article page, including text, images, elements of layout and even the article title: give weight where weight is due; Yes (Already checked)

• Readability and comprehensibility: put all information into context with the original fiction; Yes

• Check with the image use policy before adding images to any article; Yes (Already checked)

• Avoid creating lists of trivia; instead, incorporate relevant information into the body of the article; Yes

• Wikipedia's fair-use policy: the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Yes

Criteria 2a

These are the refs (as they were at the time of the posting of this) that need to include more information (Bare URLs or some other problems)

• Ref 10

• Ref 44

• Ref 45 (needs to be reworded and arranged in a better way)

• Ref 60

• Ref 65

• Ref 70 to 80 (Should not be all capital, include more information, remove Amazon.com from the refs {but not the refs themselves})

• Ref 82 to 87 (Should not be all capital, include more information)

• Ref 89 to 91

• Ref 95

• Ref 97

• Ref 104 to 112

• Ref 137 (all-cap not allowed)

All other refs seem to be well cited, though i have not yet checked (by visiting) the refs. If it turns out all good in that and the above listed refs are corrected, the article will pass this criteria. King Of The Wise (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done all the above mentioned references are fixed. UBStalk 08:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

 Yes, I see, and very well done too. Good work mate. You seem keen to get the article to GA. Good news for you, I think the article is pretty close to passing this review, and will pass it after some improvisations. :) King Of The Wise (talk) 11:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for compliment, it will take some time to fix remaining issues taking it to GA. You are a good reviewer though :) UBStalk 11:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanx :). Yeah I understand, take your time. No hurry. Meanwhile, I'll also try to help you through this review by doing what needs to be done. I'd have been a lot more helpful but my net connection is pretty slow :(. Good Luck

Criteria 2b

Lead

A ref is needed for Varney and Joe Ranft's death before production (after moving them to cast section, that is). I'll recommend adding ref no 27 (last in production section) to last line of first para in lead (about dolby digital 7.1). Other than that, the lead is well referenced, very well for a lead section.

 Done Varney and Joe Ranft's death before production do not exists anymore as I removed it while shortening lead. First para in lead is referenced.

Voice Cast

I am pretty sure there must be hundreds of sites listing the Voice Cast for the film, use one of them as a source for this section for this section needs a source to implywhere the information came from. So find a reputable site and cite it at the top of this section like this - This is the list of the Voice Cast for the film (ref) :-

 Done

Production

• The first para of this section needs some refs. The first three lines, telling of deal between disney and pixar and there rights needs a ref. A ref for Eisner's plans would be great. Also a ref for supporting Tim Allen's statement (that he did say this). Ref 17 should be used in the previous line after new Disney studio company, circle 7 animation.

• In third para a ref for January 2006 Disney bought Pixar event is needed.

 Done

 Not done, you did not reference the third para. Also you added references to a tumblr blog and a pixar wikia. Both of these are not allowed. They do not come under any type of sources and are not considered reliable at all. This is because they are user edited (like wikipipedia, but with references not compulsory), so wikipedia is better than them and yet even referencing wikipedia is not allowed. I am sorry but you'd have to find better sources. I'm sure a little research will lead you to some, since there must be a site from where these users of these two sites got this information. King Of The Wise (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Please re-check the production section as editor fellows referenced it, thanks to them! UBStalk 15:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Yes its done. And very well too. A very big thanks to User:Carniolus. Kepp up the good work. :)

Release

Marketing

The last para needs a ref.

 Done

 Yes this is done well too. Good work USB .

Home Media

Last line of first para needs ref.

 Done

 Yes

Accolades

The last lines of the first and only para need some refs to prove the claims/facts, such as first pixar and 2nd after shrek to win... and third in history to be best pic nom.

 Done I see that this is done too. Once again due to the hard and consistent work of User:Carniolus

Music

• The first para definitely needs some more refs for who it was composed by and the lossy formats it was printed in and the other facts/claims.

• The second para also needs a ref.

 Done  Yes. Both these are done too. Good work once again Carniolus.

Everything else is all right. The article is, as a whole, well referenced and i don't see any other challengeable or major fact needing ref in the article. Also, i have not yet visited all the referenced sites to check the information, so only that will be left if the above listed things are corrected, for the article to pass in the reference criteria.

Criteria 6b

An image of one of the cast characters. For eg. Tom Hanks or Tim Allen. You can add image of one of the reviewers and some other images as you'd think suitable. Take help and images from this article - Toy story 3 in Italian Wikipedia translated to English It is a very good article. take images from there and paste them here. Other then that you can take many data from there and use it here. Almost everything in it can be used here and that will give a big boost to the article, good as it already is.

I don't think further images can be added here as there isin't proper place for them UNTIL

the whole development section is copied from italian article, what do you think? UBStalk 00:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I think more images can and should be added. For eg, as i had earlier specified, an image of the main cast such as Tom Hanks and Tim Allen. A picture of one of the reviewers for eg Roger Ebert as in the Article Cars (Film), (which was coincidentally added there following a GA suggestion). The image of the incinerator scene from the Italian article can be added. There, it was in development or some other section, but here you can include it in the plot section. An image of the film crew at some promotional event can be added in the marketing sub-section of the release section. If possible add an image of a DVD cover in Home Media section. You can add an image of a famous theater where it was being shown in the big box office section. Even an image of the crew at the Oscars or at any of the award ceremonies listed can be added in the Accolades section with the caption - " Toy story 3 won these and these awards at these awards. " But remember, these things are not very highly required for the GA. Try to add as many of my specified images as you can, but your first priority should be to address the other points i have taken (such as in the 2a and 2b criteria). This can mainly be done just to improve the article.

I have added a photo of Schaal and Garlin as they are major new cast additions, and Toy Story 2 already has photos of Hanks and Allen.--Carniolus (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Good work Carniolus. You added a number of good images. I have added some too, and i think the article is pretty sufficient in this criteria now.King Of The Wise (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Accolades Table

I've tried to fix this article repeatedly. Featured lists don't do not include a "Reference" column. If you look at the "Film accolades" section of Wikipedia:Featured_lists you will see that none of those lists includes a References Column.

User:Umais_Bin_Sajjad claims this change was required by the GA review. That cannot be correct. The closest I can find to an explanation is in Criteria 1b where the reviewer recommends copying List_of_Pixar_awards_and_nominations_(feature_films)#Toy_Story_3 but even in that article weirdly the table for Toy Story 3 is the only one that includes a reference column. The reviewer does not say to copy it verbatim, suggesting "removal of (ref group=toy story 3) from all of the references" this does not prevent doing the next step of cleanup, removing the references column.

Please put the References back in the "Award" column where they should be, and while you are it make the table sortable. You might also consider splitting Category and Recipient into separate columns.

I would be severely disappointed if this article passed GA after deliberately reintroducing bad layout that Featured lists do not use and that I made a serious effort to remove from the article more than once. -- 93.107.11.99 (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done removed reference column moving references to awards column. Hope you are satisfied now. UBStalk 15:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Good work. Let me speak. Yes, User:93.107.11.99 is correct, featured lists do not contain a separate reference section. Although that is not a main point in the GA criteria. The only problem I had with the table was that it was incomplete, with half of the nom or won section empty. That was why i told you to copy the complete list from that article. I never asked for the refs section to be made, and i myself am in support of there not being one. I just wanted the table to be complete and did not ask you to change its ref format because that was not important enough for GA. Anyways if you have done it, that's a good thing USER:Umais Bin Sajjad. Thanks King Of The Wise (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, I don't think the table needs to be sortable but it would be a good thing to separate the recipient and category column. King Of The Wise (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear ip editor, please try to fill up the recipients column you created. I welcome this move but i feel that if the new column is not filled up and remains as incomplete as it is now, that will be bad for the article. A column that does not contain enough info does not justify notability enough to have a separate column for itself. It gives incomplete info and also make the table look uninviting. So i'll request you to fill up the column. We'll help too. Otherwise this will have to be reversed. I hope you understand. :) King Of The Wise (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done the empty column was filled up UBStalk 19:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Pass/Fail

So yes I've passed the article!!!! Good work User:Umais Bin Sajjad . Kepp up your good work. You too Carniolus, you had a major hand in bringing this article to GA level. Thanks to you all Wikipedia has got another great article. Congrats!!! Hope I was a good reviewer, thanx for listening to me patiently always and never complaining.

:)

King Of The Wise (talk) 11:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all of those participated in making it GA specially Carniolus, and special thanks to King Of The Wise for being a responsible reviewer. UBStalk 11:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)