Talk:Pinocchio (1940 film)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Loeba (talk · contribs) 17:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Lovely film - I'm happy to claim this one. Will start reading through soon. -- Loeba (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time!♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Review
Great stuff! This is definitely GA worthy. I do have a few suggestions below though, nothing too major (other than one, which I've made clear) but worth considering I think.


 * Prose etc
 * "Some commentators such as Nicolas Sammond consider Pinocchio to be Disney's central film and the most strongly middle-class, a metaphor for American child-rearing in the mid 20th century, intended to impose the middle-class virtues upon children by revealing the shortcomings of working class pursuits." - Could be simplified/made a bit clearer.
 * "she gives him a gold badge that certifies him as an official conscience" > "that he has an official conscience?
 * I didn't have a clue who Charlie McCarthy was and I'm pretty sure most readers won't - worth briefly explaining.
 * "Edwards was a popular entertainer who had made the first million-selling record." - Needs a ref, is it covered by the subsequent one?
 * I think it would be useful to mention Dickie Jones' age at the time.
 * "Then each frame of the animation was transferred onto animation cels using an early version on a Xerox" - I think that's meant to be "of a Xerox"? But I could be wrong.
 * "Pinocchio was a groundbreaking achievement in effects animation." - I would clarify "..in the area of effects animation."
 * I'm not entirely sure what an "incidental score" is....
 * I don't think we need to attribute (ie, give scholars names) for the facts given about the earnings...not a big deal though.
 * Although we're told a lot about the earnings, we aren't told anything much about the initial critical response >> This is important and needs to be added.


 * Layout etc
 * Recommend extending the "Writing" subheading to "Writing and design".
 * The soundtrack information is notably brief - could we mention some of the songs, perhaps? This could be moved there: ""When You Wish Upon A Star", became a major hit and is still identified with the film, and later as the theme song of The Walt Disney Company itself.[10]"
 * Reflective reviews: I'm going to suggest that the first two sentences here be moved to "Modern acclaim", and then that the section be renamed "Themes" or "Analysis" (and moved somewhere else, probably after soundtrack). That's essentially what the section is about, and it will help show that the article meets the "broadness" criteria.
 * Rename "Reissues" to "Reissues and home media"?


 * Images
 * All fine for copyright apart from the Pinocchio logo (no information given at all) but to be honest it doesn't add much anyway.
 * I strongly recommend expanding the captions, rather than just stating the name of the person, so that we know their relevance without having to check back in the text.


 * References
 * Some that may be a bit dodgy are 36 (or is this official Disney? It's hard to tell..), 45, 46 and 54. Ideally they should be replaced, unless it can be explained why they are reliable. -- Loeba (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think i almost fixed everything. Any suggestions on how i would add a caption to the Ollie Johnston and Frank Thomas photo? Koala15 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Which refs are you referring to? I added some more now i can't tell. Koala15 (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The ref numbers from this version. Please don't forget to add a bit more about the initial critical response, I'm sure we can expand upon "generally positive reviews". -- Loeba (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, to satisfy the requirements of the lead, could we add a little more detail on the production history and mention the film's pioneering animation techniques. And indicate that the film is still prevalent in popular culture. Sorry, I only just decided that the lead doesn't quite summarise the whole article as it is..but once these last things are done I'll be happy I promise, haha. -- Loeba (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, i fixed the refs, and added a bit to the lead. And i added two reviews, i could only find two reviews from its initial release, probably because not many papers reviewed films in 1940. Koala15 (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm very happy to be able to pass this as a GA - good work, and thanks for responding so promptly here! -- Loeba (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)