Talk:Be Our Guest/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: --Thevampireashlee (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to review this article. Ask questions or comment here or on my talk page. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments
Right away, I'm noticing that this article is not illustrated. While it is not required to be illustrated, I believe this satisfies the requirements for WP:FLICKR. It may also be possible to add a brief sound clip from the soundtrack or a digital recording of the film to help illustrate the subject.

As per WP:LEAD, no sources need to be included in the lead, especially if the information is fleshed out in the article body. But, it's otherwise okay. Structurally, the article seems coherent and clear. It also appears to match what's expected for an article of it's type.

Be mindful of the using reliable sources. It appears that Tumblr and some self-published blogs are being used as sources, when they may not be reliable. This is drawn from a brief glance at the article. As it stands, the article appears to meet the GA criteria for coverage. Based on the popularity of the subject, it could likely be more wider and more comprehensive, although that is not requires. I will commence a detailed read-through to kept for clarity of prose and the use of sources, starting from the lead downward, coming back around to the lead once I've had a feel for the article as a whole. This may take one or two days. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there! Thank you for starting a GA review on the "Be Our Guest" page!  I will upload the image you provided to the page ASAP.  As for the sound clip sample, it might take me a little while to find one, but I'll definitely start searching.


 * Would you like me to remove the citations from the lead? Or is it okay if I left them.  I assume removing them might be better, but I'll wait for your reply.


 * I'll look through the sources and remove the ones that are blogs and social networks and what not.--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I could upload a sound clip, if that would be easier for you. Somehow I happen to have the soundtrack from Beauty and the Beast. The clip would be from the Disney animated film, not the broadway musical. At any rate, moving the citations out of the lead is not needed for good articles. But, it would help this article become one step closer to featured article. Also, if the information is source and fleshed out in the proceeding paragraphs, there would be no need to cite the lead, since the lead is intended as a summary. I hope that's clear. I'll work on reading through the prose starting tomorrow. Until then, try replacing the Tumblr source and some of the other blog sources. Reliable sources are ideal. Music-wise, the best sources are obviously Billboard, MTV, and other prominent third party media outlets. If you're stuck, trying clicking the "news" tab on a Google or Yahoo search. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Detailed review

 * Lead
 * Okay. For the lead, I recommend that the information written in the second paragraph be moved to "Reception". It appears to be the first instance of that information. Write a brief rehashing of it for the lead paragraph itself.


 * Done.
 * Excellent thanks! --Thevampireashlee (talk) 04:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Clarity
 * "Composition" - I'm unsure if this is about the film variation of the song or the Broadway variation. Since there appear to be dozens of releases of this song, I think this section needs to be expanded to reflect that.


 * Coverage
 * According to Billboard many variations of this song have appeared on multiple albums, one even appears to have been featured on an animated television series. These need to be mentioned somewhere on the article. Song articles tend to use a "Tracking Listing" or "Release history" section for this type of information.

Some of these sources are a bit ambiguous. Not because they are unreliable per se, but the lack of publication information makes finding the reputability difficult. Providing full citations would improve on this. Suggestions: $*Done. Added Amazon as publisher.
 * Sources
 * 1) Source 1 is published SnagFilms.
 * 2) *Done. Publisher added as SnagFilms.
 * 3) Source 2 is a fansite.
 * 4) *Done. Removed and changed replaced with IMDb source.
 * 5) Source 3 and 13 - Internet Movie Database is the work, Amazon.com publishes it.
 * 6) *Done. Added Amazon as publisher for 13, and replaced three with VCD reference.
 * 7) Source 4 - Tumblr. Looks like it's a photo from a book. Do you know which book? That book would be a reliable source, I bet.
 * 8) *Done. Removed and replaced with VCD reference.
 * 9) Source 7 - is published by Musicnotes Inc. The work is Musicnotes.com
 * 10) Source 8, 11, 16, 17 - are these reliable sources?
 * 11) Source 9 - Allmusic is the work. Rovi is the publisher.
 * 12) *Done. Added Rovi as publisher.
 * 13) Source 18- is a work called Internet Theatre Database, published by Amazon.com as well.


 * Most of these are unreliable sources. This seems strange; such a popular Disney song would be expected to have more reliable critiques. I am also questioning the reliability of sites such as ImD. Aren't these updated by anonymous submissions the way a wiki is? For now I'm going to place this review on hold, as it severely lacks verifiability. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I always saw IMDb was a good source...is there some way we can know for sure?--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has an essay on citing IMDb, since its use can be justified sometimes. Usually when writing credits are concerned (these have certifications on IMDb, so they are not false in most cases). However, citing them for trivia, as is being done in the article, is inappropriate. However, I have found a tool you might find useful. The Animation World Network. As the article stands right now, it needs quite a bit of work. It needs to be almost entirely re-sourced and is missing large portions of crucial data. I'll leave this on hold for a few more days, but if significant work is not done to it, it may need to be failed for the time being. However, if this happens, don't be discouraged. Keep improving the article and maybe it'll end up a GA someday. :) --Thevampireashlee (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your time and patience, but please don't waste anymore time on this article, because it is absolutely no where close to being ready for GA status. You might as well de-nominate it right away.  There are millions of nominated articles on Wikipedia right now, so please don't waste anymore time on this one.  I'll definitely re-nominated it after I do some considerable work on it.  Once again, thanks!--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry to hear that, but I'm glad we could work together on it. Now that we know what this article needs, it can surely shine from here on out. Good luck :) --Thevampireashlee (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Overall
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Some sections need clarity. Otherwise, good. Interesting prose, well-written. Grammatically correct. No detectable spelling errors.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Lead needs work. Too many sources. Information should be only a rehashing of what the article supports
 * Done. References removed, and lead further shortened.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Changedforbetter (talk • contribs) 04:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good. The other points are passable. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * References at the bottom of article.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * All contentious statements are sourced, but some sources are unreliable. Blogs need to be replaced with credible sources.
 * C. No original research:
 * No OR.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Missing some crucial aspects.
 * B. Focused:
 * On track.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Presents information fairly and without bias.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * In progress.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * In progress
 * 1) Overall: Needs to be sourced more reliably. Lacks certain fundamental information (track listings) which cause some confusion of meaning when it comes to the composition and reception.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: