Talk:Cinderella III: A Twist in Time/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 00:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Images are appropriately tagged.
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * filmtotaal.nl
 * Dutch film review and news website, used as a source for similar information in several Wikipedia articles. Source is only used twice in this article.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Needs more evidence. I see they're advertising for editorial positions but that's all I can find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * mouseplanet.com
 * According to their website, "a recognized source for information on the subject of Disneyland, as well as Walt Disney World and the Walt Disney Company.", offering extensive, researched coverage on Disney topics. Writing staff/editorial staff, and full mailing address are available on the website. Used as a source in several Wikipedia articles.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ultimatedisney.com
 * Site owner/founder Luke Bonanno "has written and edited over 2,000 reviews of movies in theaters and on disc, interviewed a handful of Disney legends and rising stars, been quoted in a bunch of high-profile". The website hosts a plethora of detailed interviews with quotes directly from Disney staff members/filmmakers, which is the sole purpose of the website's use in this article.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems like a definite no -- the page you link says it's a one-person site, he started it as a high schooler, and has no professional experience. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mike Christie Hello, thank you for your response and for taking the time to submit the sources for additional input at WT:FILM. However, I would like to ask that you kindly reconsider your verdict on ultimatedisney.com or, at the very list, submit a query for the source at WT:FILM as well. Yes, the author/owner may have begun the website when he was in high school, and although you claim he has no professional experience (that we know of), I would argue that maintaining a website that has become a go-to source for Disney-related information, news and interviews across Wikipedia would constitute experience to some degree.
 * When I say "go-to" source, I am also referring to Wikipedia articles. Although I understand that how often a source is used on Wikipedia does not make it reliable, something must be said of the fact that there are dozens of GA and FA quality film and television articles (both Disney and non-Disney) that use the same source as a reference in some capacity, without the source being so much as questioned. Such instances include: The Simpsons (season 13), Fantasia (1940 film), Fantasia 2000, Violet Parr, Evita (1996 film), Pocahontas (1995 film), Beauty and the Beast (1991 film), Cars (film), Treasure Planet, Aladdin (1992 Disney film), Titanic (1997 film), Monsters, Inc., That's So Raven, Finding Nemo.
 * To me, this at the very least indicates that the general consensus is that Ultimate Disney is considered to be a reliable source among Wikipedia editors. Looking forward to your thoughts. Changedforbetter (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Passing by, but I agree with reviewer. As the ref lacks any editorial policies and is clearly a one-person blog, how is it an RS? The only evidence might be that absence of controversies for the source is evidence...? You said that it is go to, but a ref isn't reliable just because we use it at WP (in fact, before The Daily Mail is deprecated it was cited lots of times), if you could find a couple of other RS using it, that's an indication it's a well-respected ref. Essentially, the about us page is an ad for this person, along with the line Please hire him, backed up by no evidence. This might be just because I'm silly:), but somehow I couldn't find where it's used The Simpsons (season 13), a Command F search also didn't find any, strangely... VickKiang (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @VickKiang Thank you for your input. My quandary is: the practice by which Wikipedia editors/reviewers – particularly those who have little experience writing about or reviewing certain topics such as @Mike Christie (this isn't intended to be rude or disrespectful; the editor themself admitted this when they submitted the sources for additional review) – are able to determine what sources are reliable or not seems random at worst, and arbitrary at best. Obviously, there is a collection of Wikipedia editors experienced in editing film/television articles who consider Ultimate Disney to be a reliable source, or at the very least the best source of its kind due to the quality and scope of content available, as well as relevance to the topic. Am I to believe the fact that dozens of articles were promoted to GA while using the source holds absolutely no weight in helping to determine whether the source is valid? As for the The Simpsons (season 13) article, the source is referenced in this article Dvdizzy.com, which is the same website; I believe it was originally called Ultimate Disney before being renamed DVDizzy, or vise versa (I would imagine that your attempt to look for the source means your interest was also peaked as to how the source can be used in an FA article, despite being in your opinion "unreliable").
 * Although I have little faith that this will help my case much, I've found a few reliable sources that actually cite DVDizzy/Ultimate Disney as a reference in their own articles per your recommendation, ranging from cast and crew interviews, to specs about film and DVD releases: IGN, Texas Public Radio, Anime News Network, narniaweb.com, ComicBook.com. Changedforbetter (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact that does help -- the reliable sources in that list help establish that the source is treated as reliable, and I understand the concept that an individual who is sufficiently dedicated can establish themselves as an expert in a narrow field -- snooker.org was one such. Can you find any coverage of the site e.g. interviews with the person who runs it, or descriptions of it, as opposed to just links to it, in reliable sources?  Is it perhaps described in books about Disney as a reliable resource?  And separately, any further comments on the other sources I've queried?  I'm not seeing any feedback at RSN in support of these, other than dvdtalk which I've struck below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mike Christie By sheer happenstance, I came across a review about the documentary film Walt - The Man Behind the Myth published on The Walt Disney Family Museum website in 2011, which actually quotes a review from Luke Bonanno of UltimateDisney.com. If this doesn't seal the deal, I don't know what will.
 * I too having been awaiting additional commentary about the remaining sources from RSN as well since I've already offered my initial feedback, but I can look into those as well if it would expedite the process. Changedforbetter (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that just about gets us over the line. I think you would run into more pushback if you were to take this to WP:FAC, to be honest, but it's clear it's widely enough respected that it's not much of a risk to use it. Re the RSN comments, you've already commented here, so for my purposes that's enough, but that thread will be archived eventually and used as a reference by others researching those sites, so you might want to add your thoughts to the mix.  Yes, it would help if you can find similar evidence about the other sites; at the moment the only significant commentary about them is negative. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Your reply is certainly reasonable,, depsite my personal disagreement. It seems to me that you're saying that evaluating refs via RSN is... arbitary? Still, the refs that cite it looks quite convincing, so I guess it should be fine for GA for uncontroversial topics that don't fall under 2b, probably. VickKiang (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually this particular source wasn't included in the ones I listed at RSN, because I was sure it was unreliable! But I think even if it had been, when Changedforbetter found good evidence, I ought to be able to take that into account.  I wish all the WikiProjects had pages like the video games sources page; I'm sure this site's been discussed half a dozen times before which is a waste of everyone's time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mike Christie You were "sure it was unreliable". This....this is what I mean by arbitrary lol. At least we can agree that it was a waste of time.  Changedforbetter (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to pause the review until these are resolved, as removing these might change the text of the article substantially. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * cbr.com -- I can see that some of this site is reliable, but I can't see how to distinguish reliable staff reporting from user-contributed material.
 * CBR operates in a similar vein to Bustle, Collider, Screen Rant, wherein most of its contributors are freelance writers whose content is vetted prior to publishing on the website, in addition to a host of historians, reviewers and industry professionals. One of the site's authors, Anthony Gramuglia, has written for The Mary Sue and Screen Rant.
 * I'll post at the comics WikiProject to ask about this one. Gramuglia is not listed as one of the site staff, which would have made this OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I found support for this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/References.
 * thedisinsider.com
 * I would agree there is not much to argue this source's credibility, and most of its content is supported by better sources. Removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * animatedviews.com
 * Largely a review site, revered within the animation community as a source for upcoming information, interviews, reviews and news since 2003; similar to Ultimate Disney in the sense that it hosts a plethora of interviews with animators and filmmakers, particularly by Jérémie Noyer. Their interview with Alan Menken is listed on the composer's own IMDB page. Used in several Wikipedia articles, including GA.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Needs more evidence; I'll ask at COMICS about this one too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I know this nomination has already been failed per my request, but for my own reference and possible re-nom I've found two uses of this source in books published by legitimate publishing houses: Hayao Miyazaki: Exploring the Early Work of Japan's Greatest Animator by Raz Greenberg; How the Movies Saved Christmas: 228 Rescues from Clausnappers, Sleigh Crashes, Lost Presents and Holiday Disasters by William D. Crump.
 * Both references are written by Randall Cyrenne, an Animated Views contributor. Changedforbetter (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * animesuperhero.com
 * Recognized source in the animation/cartoon community for upcoming news, events and reviews; several interviews with industry professionals, similar to Animated Views.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Needs more evidence. I'll ask about this one too.  When there's nothing about corporate affiliation on the masthead or footer it often (but not always) means it's an amateur or fan website.  Those can still be reliable, but it's rarer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * filmschoolrejects.com -- seems to be a blog
 * A news blog, yes – similar to HuffPost – but mainly a review site; the website has been cited/quoted by outlets such as The New York Times, CNN and the Los Angeles Times. Founder/publisher Neil Miller has an entry/biography on Rotten Tomatoes. Source only used once in the article.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mike Christie This listicle is written by Christopher Campbell who, according to the website's "About Us" page, is both a founding and senior editor of the publication. Film School Rejects itself has been cited in a USA Today article, specifically a quote by managing editor Scott Beggs. Other publications that have referenced the website include AMC; IndieWire (the website references a tweet by director Guillermo del Toro, in which he quotes a Film School Rejects review of one of his films) Changedforbetter (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You use this for "Dating back to as early as 1950's Cinderella, Anastasia had always been depicted as Cinderella's marginally less unpleasant stepsister." I think you should cut this.  It's a blog, it's a listicle, and in any case you get to make most of the same argument using the source for the following sentence. This is not a statement of uncontroversial fact; it's an opinion about the content for which we should be citing reliable sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * dvdtalk.com
 * News and review website devoted to home video/DVD releases; perfect considering a A Twist in Time is a direct-to-DVD release. Founded by writer Geoffrey Kleinman in 1999. Used sparingly in the article.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Struck per conversation at RSN. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * mediamikes.com
 * Movie/entertainment news and review site, with about page that lists history and writing/editorial staff: https://mediamikes.com/about/--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mike ChristieI have found examples of mediamikes.com being cited by publications such as Northwest Florida Daily News (specifically in reference to the work of contributor Mike A. Smith, who has apparently written a making-of book on the film Jaws 2); Woman's World Magazine; blabbermouth.net; Yahoo! Sports (or Yahoo Entertainment); IndieBound; and Screen Rant Changedforbetter (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You're using this to cite the Blu-Ray release date, which is not a controversial fact. I would think a better source exists, but I think this is harmless to leave in.  The fact that other sources cite it again seems like just enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * movieweb.com
 * Movie/entertainment review and news website. Website says they "strive for 100% accurate headlines and apply a rigorous vetting process to every news article on the site". According to the website, "one of the first movie sites to appear on the web", who "continues to be one of the most trusted destinations for the connected generation." Editorial staff/writers available on website. Owned by Valnet Inc., the parent company/publisher who also publishes Screen Rant, Collider, and Comic Book Resources, among others. Use in article is minimal.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * whatculture.com -- listed as unreliable at WP:RS/PS
 * Dispensable. Removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you. All points have been addressed. Changedforbetter (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mike Christie Changedforbetter (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll go through each one above and reply individually, but to save repetition under each one it's quicker if I add a comment or two here that may apply to more than one above. It's not how much a site is used in the article that counts, or whether it is used elsewhere in Wikipedia; it's whether we can trust the site to provide reliable data.  In a couple of cases above you link to pages that list editorial staff; that usually does it, because it makes it clear that the site is run to editorial standards.  Pointing out cases where other reliable sources clearly trust the site is also good.  A site's own statements about how trustworthy they are can be helpful, but only if they describe editorial policies.  Sites run by a single person are only occasionally going to be reliable; usually that's when it's the personal site of an acknowledged expert in the field.  I also do look at the sources listed at WP:FILM/R and usually go along with their assessment, so you might want to suggest on their talk page that they should add sites to the list.  If I say "Needs more evidence" above, it means I don't think any of these criteria have been met, and it also means I've looked on the website myself to try to find evidence of editorial control and so on, and have been unable to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've struck three from the list based on your feedback, and have left a few notes above; towards the end I decided to quit posting individual notes and have posted a query at WT:FILM. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I've posted at WP:RSN as well and have pinged you to that thread. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

, without more evidence I'm not going to pass this with animesuperhero.com and animatedviews.com in the article. That would tear a big hole in it and I think I'd probably have to fail it anyway while you cut that material out and rewrote. If you're convinced they ought to stay, I suggest that I fail this GA while you work on finding evidence that they are reliable. Any future GA reviewer will read this review and ask the same questions, so I think there's no point in just delaying. Let me know how you'd like to proceed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Mike Christie Fail it please. Changedforbetter (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm failing it. Re your comment above: it was not a waste of time.  I would have wasted your time if I'd failed it without asking you for evidence, but I asked for evidence before failing it and you provided some.  That's how it should work -- the fact that I was sure it was unreliable didn't prevent you from changing my mind.  I should have included it in the RSN list, though; that was an oversight, though in the end it made no difference.  Anyway, best of luck with the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)