Wikipedia:Peer review/Frozen II/archive2

Frozen II

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because for upcoming FAC. Thanks, Wingwatchers (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you review if I gather everything for the animation section, @HumanxAnthro:? Wingwatchers (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely looks a lot bigger than when I read it, which is great to see. However, there are sentences I noticed with obvious flaws. For example "Golberg had to visualize ahead the production tools and the extra technical visual test needed to complete for this particularly conformity", "Hyun-Min Lee served as animation supervisor for Anna, while Wayne Unten reprised his role from the first film as animation supervisor for Elsa, whereas Steve Golberg served as the animation supervisor." Also, "Before animation began, Unten showed various scenes of superheroes like Frozone to the animators working on Elsa as examples of what not to emulate." It would be better here if you stated near the start of the sentence that Unten showed not what to emulate.
Additionally, the section's already so big that, given what other sources could be out there but I may've missed and how it could expand the overall production section even more so, the production section may need to be split into another article to avoid this one being WP:TOOBIG. I've had a similar thought way moreso with the production section of Frozen (2013 film)]. I mean, look at how gigantic the subsections are overthere.
I also notice Frozen II is missing a commercial analysis section, which the article on the first film has in spades. Frozen II broke so many records at the box office I don't imagine no box office analyst discussing the film, but is that the case? 👨x🐱 (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the grammatical mistakes and reduced the overall length. Is that better now? Wingwatchers (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree cutting the length of the section itself is the solution. We need to be sure we're give WP:DUEWEIGHT to the film's overwhelming amount of coverage, and that include article splitting. If there's that much details about the animation production in HQ sources, we should have that much represented on the encyclopedia. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanxAnthro, I didn't cut it, but simply moved them and moreover summarized them. Also, put a seperate sub-section for design. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK. Didn't catch that hehehe 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanxAnthro, can you do another review for the expanded themes section? Thanks. Wingwatchers (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a lot more is included then before, so great job with that! I will, however say that I noticed sentences with grammatical errors just from a skim through of a single section. "because long have been historically this tribe has been portrayed as a mythical, magical, and sorcery image" "Slate critic Ink Yang reacted perplexity over the film's canonical expansion, he found the sister's undisclosed indigenous relationship difficult to digest." This indicates to me a copyedit is needed so the prose can be FA quality 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro, some duplicate information removed, fixed, is it ready? Wingwatchers (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noticing Chompy Ace is still making copyedits to the article, plus remember, the sources I provided were only for the first few pages of a Google search with thousands of result. I'd look beyond the sixth page for any other info you could include. 👨x🐱 (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanxAnthro Potentially once the competitiveness had been addressed, will you consider supporting it at some possibilities? Wingwatchers (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to view the final results once all of the editors have come up with the final decision. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanxAnthro, the comprehensiveness, done. Wingwatchers (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAC peer review sidebar

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, can you throw out some further comments here? Thanks. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wingwatchers: I'll try to look at this soon, but no promises. Real life has become busy. Z1720 (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time. Wingwatchers (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720

Some comments below:

"if it would be a let-down to the original." -> "if it would be perceived as a disappointment compared to the original"
"and were cross-departmentally collaborated." and was?
"their roles as songwriters, Christophe Beck have also returned as composer." -> "their roles as songwriters, and Christophe Beck returned as composer."
"Jeremy Sisto, Ciarán Hinds, and Aurora (singer)" Aurora's wikilink needs a pipe, so it is [[Aurora (singer)|Aurora]] or something similar.
"Additionally, Alan Tudyk" Additionally isn't needed here and is redundant.
" Paul Briggs also reprised his role " Delete also as redundant.
"he had no idea what it might be." -> he did not know what it might be.
"Anderson-Lopez confirmed that Elsa would have no love interest in the movie." -> "Anderson-Lopez confirmed that Elsa would not have a love interest in the movie."
"The animation process were notably rough to portray the Germanic water spirits Nøkk, approximately took eight months for completion as estimated by Golberg." -> The animation process was notably rough to create the Germanic water spirits Nøkk, and it was estimated by Golberg that it took approximately eight months to complete.
"next to the characters, and so, to fit, they were made more stylistic." -> and so were made more stylistic to fit within the movie's animation style.
"Designs of the characters and their costumes undergone many re-sketchments and exercises before they settled on the final draft." -> and their costumes underwent many re-sketches"
"This is particular for Elsa and Anna's, their outfits was estimated by their designer Griselda Sastrawinata-Lemay to be the most intricate by all animated films in history." --> "The designer for Elsa and Anna, Griselda Sastrawinata-Lemay, stated that these character's designs were the most intricate by all animated films in history."
"Lee was saw this particularly promising because she believed it helps to enhance the storytelling experience." Delete, it's unnecessary
"Within the technological advancement, they were able to incorporate more details such as extra bead work or sequins that were never been impossible for the first film." -> "Technological advancements since the first film allowed designers to incorporate more details in the character's outfits such as extra bead work or sequins."
"By the fabric enhancements, they use a .G.I. tailoring program called Marvelous Designer that features draping of certain materials such as fabric upon an animated character in the same logic of draping on a real person." -> The designers used a G.I. tailoring program called Marvelous Designer to accurately depict the draping of clothing on the characters."
"Before designing, the designers were informed three things to keep in mind, the season (Fall), the time/age (Three Years after), and a so-called "epic" journey." -> The designers were directed to conform to three characteristics for the clothing: a fall aesthetic, the characters becoming three years older from the first film, and the movie's quality of an "epic" journey."
In general, the design section needs a complete copyedit. I feel like I have to rewrite every sentence to ensure it is proper English, and I am not even sure it is the best writing. Please take another look at this section and edit accordingly.
"with Christophe Beck back as composer." -> while Christophe Beck returned as composer
"Beck noted that the score spiritually conveys Elsa's and Anna's emotional growth, he described the impacts as "matured and introduces more sophisticated musical concepts and thematic elements"." Delete spiritually, replace the comma with a semi-colon
"Anderson-Lopez described the album's theme simply as "meta-story"," Delete simply, redundant.
"to the Lopezes' studio" Lopez's
"but they found that having camera operators" -> but the composers found that
"surpassing Incredibles 2 (2018) (113.6 million views)." Delete the year and the number of views.
" which strategically tackled the holiday's harmony and mood." -> which matched the holiday's harmony and mood"
"It had caught well in the process, and promisingly, as a result, would extend to a long-term playability in the box office." I don't know what this sentence is trying to tell me. Box office information will come later.
"at the Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles, among the audience were attended by both of its cast and crew." -> Los Angeles, which was attended by the movie's cast and crew.
" but was push reportedly forwarded five days earlier" -> but the release was changed to five days earlier
"recording of the film; an Easter-based short hosted by Olaf, and a" either both of these should be a semi-colon or both should be a comma.
The Notes should instead be bundled in the reference section, as seen in WP:CITEBUNDLE
It is very difficult to figure out what is being said in the final paragraph of Critical reception. I suggest getting this paragraph copyedited, too.
"Thematic analysis" is too long; I suggest creating level 3 headings for this section
The first paragraph of Thematic analysis starts with explaining the connection between Sami culture and reindeer, but then talks about other themes in the film. This paragraph should have one focus.
"Though directly influenced by Sámi history, Inkoo Kang argued that being " Who is Inkoo Kang? Why should the reader care about his opinion?
The Themes section spends too much time discussing the plot of the movie. These plot details should be removed.
"Nia Kurniawati suggested that the femininity" Who is this person, and why should the reader care about their opinion?
The reference for Nia Kurniawati is incorrect, as Kurniawati is the author's last name, not Nia. Same for Joseph, Norman Moses

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!@Z1720 Wingwatchers (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully done, the author names and all that dramas is actually modeled after Die Hard. They were either critics or scholars. @Z1720 Wingwatchers (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments:

Notes d and e are references to multiple sources, while ref 115 is also to multiple sources. There needs to be one consistent method used to bundle multiple citations.
Paragraph 5 of the themes section still has too much information on the plot of the movie, and not enough analysis of the themes. This should be trimmed.
"Frozen II was not the first film or media to drew such inspiration from the Sámi, they have been for a long period been narratively portrayed as mythical, magical, and sorcery image." I don't think this sentence is necessary
"The original film had some controversy because" -> The first film
"Summarily Fonneland referred ecofeminism, spiritual connections between women and nature, as the overall main theme." This should be moved to the eco paragraph (second from the last)
" From points at The Guardian in Simran Hans's opinions," This is weird phrasing. This needs to be fixed.
The critical response section falls into an "X says Y" pattern. I suggest reading WP:RECEPTION and using some strategies to change up the sentence structures.

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully completed. Wingwatchers (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wingwatchers: are you still interested in getting comments for this PR? I suggest reaching out to those who commented on previous FACs and PRs to ask their opinions. I also suggest going to WP:FAM to find an experienced editor who can look at this article. Z1720 (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: I am closing this PR due to inactivity. Wingwatchers or another editor can open a new PR when the above are addressed in the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]